Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Class Sizes

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on (a) the gross cost of reducing to under 30 the class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds and (b) the date by which this will be achieved. [4088]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Our policy is to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below by the end of this Parliament. The gross cost will be less than the savings made from phasing out the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Colvin: I am grateful for that reply, but the Institute of Public Finance, whose research is based on the Department's figures, showed that the net cost of reducing class sizes to under 30, even taking into account the savings from the assisted places scheme, is £225 million over five years, which means an annual deficit of £45 million. Where will that money come from? Will it make the black hole in the Government's finances even bigger? It is time that Opposition Members started referring to it as a red hole because the Government are seriously in debt and they will get deeper in debt.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman referred to a cost of £45 million a year, according to that independent survey. For his information, by the turn of the century £100 million will have been saved from the assisted places scheme and annually thereafter the savings will be in excess of £100 million a year. That is adequate funding to honour our pledge to reduce class sizes. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the Hampshire local education authority which covers his constituency, there are fewer than 1,300 assisted places whereas 17,000 five, six and seven-year-olds are in classes of more than 30. The hon. Gentleman may defend the privileges of the few; the Labour party will defend the interests of the many.

Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend will know that he has the enthusiastic support of all Labour Members and the whole of the education world for reducing class sizes—the quicker the better. Does he agree that the quality of teaching is equally important if we are to raise standards? He will be aware of the widespread demoralisation in the classroom because of the 18 years

of continual denigration by the Conservative party. What will he do to engage the commitment of teachers in raising the quality of, and standards in, education?

Mr. Byers: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The reduction in class sizes must be coupled with high-quality teaching if we are to achieve our ambitious target to raise standards in all schools for all children. We shall shortly publish a White Paper outlining how we intend to raise standards in schools. One of the main elements of the White Paper will be some positive proposals showing how the Government value the teaching profession. We shall take steps to ensure that the profession is valued and that it encourages new entrants and offers high-quality teaching to deliver our commitment to raise standards.

Mrs. Browning: Does the Minister still assert that a minimal cost will be attached to accommodating the additional 38,000 children who would have had assisted places by insisting that their parents put them into schools with surplus capacity, many of which will be sink schools? Is that the Government's policy? Is that where those children will go?

Mr. Byers: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and congratulate her on her appointment.
The Government believe that classes of more than 30 pupils become not so much a valuable learning experience as a question of crowd control. We are no longer prepared to tolerate that situation. There is a rich irony in the question posed by Conservative Members. Today we published new figures showing that, in primary schools, one in three young people are in a class of more than 30 pupils. That is an increase of 85,000 children on last year's figures. We have signalled our intention to reduce class sizes. Phasing out the assisted places scheme will do that by providing the resources to ensure that we can deliver our manifesto pledge.

Mr. Stevenson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone, at least 3,500 five, six and seven-year-olds are being taught in classes of more than 30, and some in classes of more than 40? Is he also aware that that is a disgraceful legacy of 18 years of Conservative government? My hon. Friend's commitment to phase out the assisted places scheme and to reduce class sizes is very welcome. Can he tell us when that process will begin?

Mr. Byers: The money will start being freed up from September next year, as we phase out the assisted places scheme. As soon as possible, we will use those resources to reduce class sizes in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country. That is one of the key pledges that the Labour party gave during the general election campaign, and it was one of the reasons for our overwhelming victory on 1 May. We give notice that overcrowded classes will come to an end, because we will honour the pledge that we gave to the British people.

Unskilled Manual Workers

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the employment prospects for unskilled manual workers over the coming three years; and if he will make a statement. [4091]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): Our intention, through our welfare-to-work policies, is to improve the job prospects of unskilled people by enhancing their skills and employability. That is essential if we are to create an economy with high and stable levels of employment, in which all have the opportunity to prosper.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the Minister recall that in a previous existence, he said that it was businesses, not Governments, that created jobs? I welcome any scheme that will improve job prospects, but what will happen after the first year, when the money runs out? Will the Minister introduce a one-off windfall tax every year, or will he throw the people on the schemes out of work?

Mr. Howarth: It is indeed businesses that create jobs, and Governments who create the conditions in which businesses can create jobs. We are determined that the role of this Government should be to encourage and enable businesses to create good-quality jobs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our costings for the new deal are well considered, and that the programme will be carried through the life of this Parliament. It will give young people the opportunity that they should have to develop their skills and employability, so that we can enhance the capacity of our economy to generate wealth and to provide security and employment.

Mr. MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain has the highest level of unemployment among young males, and that in my constituency, where there are no more jobs left in coal or steel, that is a pressing problem? In the planning that he and his colleagues are putting into effect for the windfall tax, will he undertake to consider particularly the problem of young men, so that the lost generation, condemned under the Tories, can have some hope under the new Government?

Mr. Howarth: I fully understand and sympathise with what my hon. Friend says. His constituency has been through extraordinary adversity, as has the constituency that I represent, which is also an important steel-making part of Britain. Our new deal will offer better opportunities for those who are long-term unemployed—beyond two years—and for the young people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, so that we will be able to provide for them good-quality placements with employers, which will include an important dimension of education and training opportunities to enable them to enhance their skills and to be better placed for the future.

Mr. Boswell: I welcome the Minister on his return to the Department where we both served in different capacities. Given that youth unemployment has been falling for the past five years at a steady rate of 100,000 per annum, can he tell the House how much extra will be contributed by the welfare-to-work scheme? What mechanism will he set up to differentiate between the improvements that he seeks and claims and the improvements that are already taking place because of the buoyancy of the economy that he inherited?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Yes, the whirligig of time produces unpredictable effects.
While we must be pleased that unemployment has fallen from its worst levels, the reality is that one in five households have no one of working age in employment. The social security bill has doubled in real terms since 1979. We face very grave problems, and unemployment remains shamefully high. We must act now. The new deal involves a strategy on a far larger scale than anything we have seen before. It will offer a choice of quality options and preparation, through a gateway, to ensure that people are counselled and steered towards the best opportunities for them. Employers have already made a very enthusiastic commitment to the strategy. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this serious strategy to address the problems that remain even after the improvements that we have seen.

Ms Hewitt: I welcome the Government's initiative in persuading business leaders to begin to commit to participating in the welfare-to-work programme. What steps will the Government take to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and throughout the country have an opportunity to participate as well?

Mr. Howarth: It is important to build upon the very encouraging response that we received yesterday from senior people in Britain's top companies. They committed themselves—I think without hesitation—to supporting the Government and the strategy that we are unfolding.
Of course, we must reach out beyond the people with whom we were engaged in dialogue yesterday. I am pleased to confirm that representatives of prominent small business organisations were also present. We shall organise a series of regional conferences, and we intend to exchange views through constructive dialogue with employers across the country.

Mr. Dorrell: Is there not a contradiction at the heart of the Government's employment policy? The Government seem to believe that the prospects of the young unemployed may be improved by introducing a subsidy of £60 a week to reduce the cost of employing them, while the prospects of other unemployed people may be improved by introducing a minimum wage and increasing the cost of employing them. Which approach does the Minister think is more likely to prove successful?

Mr. Howarth: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has assumed his new position. We look forward to his constructive and humane contribution to the national debate on these issues. However, his question is not necessarily a notable advance in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that the most disadvantaged in the labour market—the long-term unemployed, including young people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and people of low and no skills—are left to fester in unemployment. I do not think that he wants that. Equally, I do not suppose that he is really happy to see 100,000 people earning less than £1.50 an hour and 200,000 people earning less than £2 an hour. That is not decent. It is also short-sighted because our employers need to invest in skills and quality; they cannot compete simply on the basis of cheapness.

Teaching Methods

Mrs. Organ: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that good practice in respect of teaching methods is disseminated throughout the education service. [4092]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We have today announced major changes to initial teacher training, based on best practice, intended to ensure that all new teachers know how to teach the basics effectively. These changes are crucial to raising standards across the system and to meeting the new demanding targets that we have set for literacy and numeracy. I shall place details of the new requirements in the Library.

Mrs. Organ: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, which constitutes a major step in raising standards in education and, more importantly, raising the standards of the profession and teacher morale. However, we must go further and raise standards for 11-year-olds at key stage 2. Does my hon. Friend intend to set targets for children at key stage 2? If so, what will they be and when will they be delivered? The target level attainment by 11-year-olds was appalling under the previous Government, with only 54 per cent. reaching the expected levels in mathematics and 57 per cent. in English.

Ms Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who recognises the need to raise morale and skill and knowledge levels for new teachers who are going into the profession. The targets that we have set for both literacy and numeracy for key stage 2 are at the centre of the rest of our education policies. By 2002, we expect 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds to reach the standards expected of their age in mathematics, and in English, 80 per cent. They are demanding targets—I think that they can be reached—that will lift ambition. If we cannot do that for our 11-year-olds and equip them to have access to the curriculum in the secondary school, we have no right to be in government and to say that we are running an education system.
These are targets that we all live and die by. Part of the problem with the previous Government was that they set targets for others. They were never prepared to take responsibility themselves. The present Government are prepared to stand behind their targets and play their part in ensuring that our children get the best, because that is what they deserve.

Dr. Julian Lewis: We welcome any attempt by the Government to raise education standards, but is the Minister aware that the introduction of sound teaching methods has increased standards at Testwood school, Totton, in my constituency, from an achievement of just 18 per cent. at five grade A to C GSCEs eight years ago to 59 per cent. last year? If she is aware of that, will she please explain why a Minister in her Department has decided to reject the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools, that of the present hon. Member and of his predecessor to grant a sixth form to an outstandingly successful grant-maintained school?

Ms Morris: I congratulate the school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on reaching such good levels

of attainment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pass on my congratulations and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends. He will know that when we consider whether sixth forms should be added to schools, we apply a range of considerations, and that the quality of teaching and learning is only one criterion. The hon. Gentleman will know also that what happens in one school has an effect on others in the locality. Although I am not familiar with the application that he talks about, I am sure that my hon. Friends took into account all the circumstances and the evidence that was put before them.

Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is important to establish and set targets. I hope that she will agree, however, that it is vital that teachers are given the assistance that they need to ensure that pupils reach the targets that are set.
I welcome the Minister's statement on initial teacher training. However, in view of her comments during the passage of the Education Act 1994, does she not now believe that the failed experiment of school-centred initial teacher training should be abandoned? Will she explain on whose authority the chief inspector of schools, Mr. Chris Woodhead, possibly in cahoots with Prince Charles, is promoting school-centred initial teacher training?

Ms Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the national curriculum for in-service teacher training, which will play its part in raising standards. I remain convinced that we need a combination of sound practice in schools and strong links with institutions of higher education if we are to train people to be effective teachers, and that is how the curriculum will be judged.

Youth Unemployment (Wolverhampton)

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to move into work long-term unemployed young people in Wolverhampton who are on welfare. [4093]

The Minister for Employment and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): In Wolverhampton, as in other parts of the country, under our new deal for young unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 24, we will offer quality opportunities to take jobs, and to gain relevant education, training and work experience.
The Employment Service will work in partnership with the business community, voluntary organisations and other bodies to ensure that the initiative is effective in Wolverhampton and elsewhere.

Mr. Purchase: Is not my right hon. Friend horrified to learn that even the fiddled figures that we put up with under the Conservatives show that 43 per cent. of young people in Wolverhampton have been unemployed for more than three months, and more than 20 per cent. have been unemployed for a year or longer? Does he agree that Conservative policies led to unsustainably high interest rates, which choked off the job-creating investment required in the west midlands and elsewhere that would have put an end to that problem? We should have been enjoying a boom in jobs for young people.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to be shocked at the level of unemployment in his constituency, which means


suffering for individuals. There is a corrosive effect on the whole community of having a workless class disconnected from mainstream opportunities. That is why we need the programmes in the new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, and why we need the wider policies for macro-economic stability as a platform for economic success and expansion, which our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out in the Budget.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will pay the jobseeker's allowance to all those people unemployed and seeking work, according to the labour force survey definition. [4094]

Mr. Andrew Smith: No. The jobseeker's allowance is payable to people who meet certain conditions that are set down in law—the right hon. Gentleman had a part in that. Some of the people who are classified as unemployed under the labour force survey definition would not meet those conditions.

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, should there be a review of the methodology for calculating and publishing the unemployment figures, whatever the result of that review, full benefit will be paid through the jobseeker's allowance to everyone who is declared to be unemployed?

Mr. Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a review is being carried out by the Office for National Statistics. I thought that there was agreement by the Opposition as well as by the Government that it should pay more attention to the labour force survey. I trust that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that benefits should go to those who need them most.

Mr. Ernie Ross: May I suggest that my right hon. Friend ignores any advice from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, when he had this responsibility, participated in the 23 fiddles to reduce the claimant count? When he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, he was 100 per cent. opposed to using the labour force survey to determine how many people were looking for work.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is entirely right to contrast the Government's consistency with the Opposition's inconsistency. The important thing about the review is that it is conducted at arm's length from government, so that we re-establish public confidence in the credibility and trustworthiness of official statistics. The statistics will not be politically manipulated by us as they were by the previous Government.

Mr. Keith Simpson: ay I take the Minister up on his use of the word "consistency"? To help in his quest for funds for unemployment, has he made any representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the privatisation of air traffic control?

Mr. Smith: I am not sure how that matter falls within the definition of "official statistics". We have been consistent on that, as on all the other matters in our election manifesto. Unlike Conservative Members, when

we promise a fair and impartial review of official statistics that is conducted at arm's length from government, we deliver our promise, whereas the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends broke theirs.

Mr. Sanders: If the Conservatives fiddled the unemployment figures, why does not the Minister simply reverse the changes that they made?

Mr. Smith: Because it is important to re-establish public confidence in the statistics and methodology. That must not be done on a party political basis. We must decide together and try to find a consensus on the statistics that can command public confidence. That is what we need, not just for the purposes of the Government but for wider use by the economic community and the public.

Youth Unemployment

Mr. Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to move young unemployed people on welfare into work. [4095]

Ms Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the Government's plans to assist the young unemployed. [4103]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) by the Minister for Employment and Disability Rights.

Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be glad to know that there are already projects in operation and plans in the pipeline in the Rotherham area which offer real training and job prospects to the young and the long-term unemployed. How do the Government plan to draw on such experience, good practice and ideas as they draw up the precise details of the new deal programme?

Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to hear that action is already being taken in my hon. Friend's constituency to prepare for the announcement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Wednesday, and for the subsequent programme in which we shall engage.
The record of attainment of those born in my hon. Friend's constituency has been considerable. The Leader of the Opposition greatly benefited there from past practice of investing in education and employability. Our task will be to ensure that all children in the constituency and across the country enjoy quality programmes and quality education backed up by quality training. That will give them a real chance to earn their own living and lift themselves out of dependence on the state.

Ms Ellman: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituency has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. with recorded male unemployment reaching 26.7 per cent. and nearly a third of the unemployment in Riverside being among young people? Can he confirm that, in effecting a good programme of opportunities, jobs and skills, the new deal will work with the many


examples of community and co-operative enterprise that are already operating successfully in Liverpool, Riverside along with the private sector?

Mr. Blunkett: I recognise the enormous problems that affect my hon. Friend's constituency. Our programme must tackle not just the quality of the offers and choices being made but the lack of hope and the desperation which generational unemployment has brought to my hon. Friend's area and many others. That is why our programme will prepare young people by giving them education, social skills and real opportunities. It will build on the initiatives of community and voluntary groups by drawing together such programmes and enfranchising such agreements locally. In that way we can build on the best already in existence and invest in the future of the young people who were written off by the previous Government.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Apart from munching a croissant and drinking his coffee at the breakfast meeting at No. 11 Downing street, did the right hon. Gentleman have time to listen to any of the guests? If not, will he consult the speech by Sir Ian Prosser, chairman of Bass, in which he made it quite clear that labour market flexibility and low non-wage labour costs meant that we had better employment figures than the rest of Europe? By contrast, the right hon. Gentleman's policies will choke off people's ability to take on employees. They could end up subsidising them under the welfare-to-work scheme, which will lead to folly and substitution.

Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows more about croissants than I do. Unfortunately, although I was there on time I did not manage to get one. It just goes to show how much I am likely to get out of No. 11 in future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was just testing whether Conservative Members were still awake.
The right hon. Lady will of course be aware that the level of unemployment among young people in Germany is lower than it is in the United Kingdom. It is lower because of Germany's investment in skills and training—its vocational investment—through which people can take up apprenticeships and opportunity. That is why, at the business breakfast, the employers present, small as well as large, have overwhelmingly committed themselves to joining us in partnership. In return, we said that we would listen to their concerns and join them in ensuring that the programmes that we set forward have universal support, so that we can build a consensus to rid ourselves of hopelessness and end the exclusion of a whole generation of people. Given the right hon. Lady's background and her commitment in the past to overcoming poverty, I expect her to join us in that endeavour.

Mr. Willetts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that unemployment among young people is falling strongly and has fallen by 400,000 in the past four years? How much better than that does he expect to do in the next four years?

Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position.
I want the target to be to reduce unemployment among people under 25 to the same level as that among adult workers—rather than its being double or treble that

level—so that we ensure that young people become accustomed to being at work in the morning and to being able to earn their own living, rather than depending on others. Any civilised society will be judged by what it does to give young people a real drive to enterprise and the ability to earn their living in a civilised fashion.

Ms Hodge: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tremendous progress that he has made in a mere eight weeks, even without breakfast, as compared with the disastrous 18 years that preceded them. As part of the welfare-to-work programme, is he considering using some of the resources to expand child care facilities, particularly for mothers and lone parents who want to work but cannot because they do not have access to affordable child care?

Mr. Blunkett: We as a Department, with the Ministry for women, will ensure that we co-ordinate education, child care and family learning. It is critical that those who enter full-time education and training in particular have facilities that enable them to take up that option. Above all, it is critical that they are able, during the programme and afterwards, to earn a living like other families, and that the widest possible choice of under-fives facilities is available.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the Government's commitment to assist employers to take on young unemployed—and perhaps some long-term unemployed—persons, but does the Secretary of State agree that, when there has been subsidy, some unscrupulous employers have exploited it and, instead of creating full-time posts, have continued to take on subsidised employees? Will he monitor the scheme closely to ensure that there is no abuse?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is always a danger in such circumstances. Employers and the Employment Service agree that they should assist us in monitoring the situation. Obviously, as Winston Churchill once pointed out, if the worst employer is undercut by the very worst, no one gains.

Training Investment

Mr. Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to increase investment in training. [4096]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Our proposals for increasing participation in training by individuals and employers will be set out in a White Paper on lifelong learning in the autumn.

Mr. Öpik: While I welcome any initiative that improves the general level of skills and education, does the Minister agree that many skills shortages are created by the relatively high cost of skills training in certain sectors, such as engineering? Will he commit the Government to ensuring that priority funding goes into the sectors where there are skills shortages to ensure that British industry as a whole does not feel that the Government are, let us say, tilting at windfalls?

Dr. Howells: Well, I do not know whether there are any national vocational qualifications in windmill


construction, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we have to be imaginative in trying to procure for training purposes the very best state-of-the art machinery, especially in engineering, science and similar disciplines. It is very worrying that, all too often, further education colleges, universities and other institutions tend to go for the softer options—the cheaper courses—rather than concentrate on those that require a good deal of expensive machinery.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend think that training and enterprise councils are sufficiently accountable, locally and nationally, for the training that they deliver in view of the investment in them? Should not more be done to make them more accountable?

Dr. Howells: There is no doubt that the performance of TECs is extremely patchy. The Government are determined to introduce performance standards that can be monitored, that TECs should be much more accountable, and that they should co-ordinate their activities much more closely with FE colleges, local authorities and universities in their area. That is how they can maximise their input into their regional economies.

Mr. Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is good for the morale of a profession to have its training prescribed by politicians without relevant professional qualifications? If so, can we look forward to statements from the Secretary of State for Health on how doctors might be trained to perform operations or from the Secretary of State for Transport on how to drive a train?

Dr. Howells: No.

Non-vocational Education

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the funding of non-vocational education. [4097]

Dr. Howells: No representations have been received specifically on this topic. My right hon. Friend recently announced the formation of a national advisory group on adult learning to advise on all issues of adult learning, including funding.

Mr. Barnes: Did not the previous Government create a dangerous divide between the funding of non-vocational and vocational education which often led to non-vocational education being priced out of the market? I spent 21 years in adult education and always thought that there was a clear connection between vocational and non-vocational education—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members would benefit from my teaching. Are the Government going to tackle the problem created by the previous Government?

Dr. Howells: The division of responsibility between the Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities for securing adequate further education stems from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The FEFC is responsible for securing adequate provision of those courses described—I have to be careful here—in the Act under schedule 2 as having national

significance, such as basic skills courses, access courses and those which lead to academic or vocational qualifications. Local education authorities have been made responsible for all other kinds of courses, including those called recreational or of a leisure nature.
If my hon. Friend examines the record of Tuesday night's Adjournment debate, he will see that unless we clear up the ambiguities in what constitutes a schedule 2 and a non-schedule 2 course, we shall be in big trouble with funding. In that debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned a number of enterprises that are owed a great deal of money by the FEFC and colleges that have contracted with them. There is ambiguity about whether their courses are schedule 2 courses. The Government will resolve that problem.

Mr. Stunell: Will the Minister take note of early-day motion 166 which refers particularly to the funding of colleges? Is he aware of the parliamentary answer I received to the effect that the allocation of funding to colleges and courses is a matter for the colleges to decide? My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned engineering training. How are colleges to pay for such expensive courses in the light of the Minister's previous answers?

Dr. Howells: The funding of further education colleges is the responsibility of the FEFC, which is closely monitored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The colleges have to make a case for increased funding. If they cannot, they do not receive increased funding. If they show that they have a good intake of students who will be studying courses that will lead to accreditation in technical and scientific subjects, money will be made available, but the colleges have to prove that first and they must have good courses that are properly inspected and delivered.

Child Care

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans his Department has to ensure co-ordination between early-years education and child care. [4098]

Mr. Blunkett: With other Ministers, the Department has asked local authorities to draw together early-years forums to establish interim early-years development plans and to have programmes in place by next April for the co-ordination of nursery education and child care. That builds on our commitment to early excellence centres, ensuring that from the time a child is born, developmental skills, including the learning process, are encouraged as much as possible. I am delighted that more than 80 local authorities have already responded, showing their commitment and enthusiasm for early-years development plans. I am sorry that my hon. Friend's county council-Essex—is not one of them.

Angela Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that, after years of neglect, when Essex county council was under Conservative control, and despite the attempts of the new Liberal Democrat-Labour administration, we still have one of the lowest levels of nursery education and pre-school provision in the country? Will he encourage Essex county


council to take those comments on board and to work with the providers of pre-school education in my constituency, who are keen for our policies to be put into practice?

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly shall. During its four years in office, the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition began the process of trying to reverse the worst record in Britain, with only three nursery education providers operating in the state sector under the previous Tory regime. That was a scandalous record.
It will take us a little time to ensure that coverage is available across the country, but we have made clear our commitment to ending the voucher scheme from the end of this term and to providing free places for all four-year-olds. Working with the voluntary sector and others who are committed to providing places, we shall ensure that that essential pledge is carried out in the next 12 months.

Mrs. May: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable anxiety that has been caused among providers of pre-school education and parents by his decision to abolish the nursery voucher scheme before putting proper alternative arrangements in place? Will he clarify the criteria under which local authorities will be able to reduce the amount that is reimbursed to providers in the voluntary and private sectors—a move that many fear will lead only to a reduction in the provision of pre-school education?

Mr. Blunkett: I have no evidence of that and I have received no letters from the hon. Lady's constituents in Maidenhead saying that they feel threatened. We have made it clear that existing places that are carried forward into the autumn term will be honoured. We have set in place mechanisms to ensure that, where there is doubt, a certificate will be issued to that effect. There is no threat to anyone currently providing a place. They will not receive less for that place than they received from the public purse under the voucher scheme. We have encouraged local authorities of all persuasions to work with providers so that there is a collaborative, joint approach rather than the competitive market that closed private and voluntary providers in the pilot scheme areas and, after 1 April, in other areas when the voucher scheme came into operation.

Reading

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to help those pupils leaving primary school this summer who have fallen behind in their reading. [4099]

Mr. Byers: The Government launched a pilot of 29 literacy summer schools on 3 June for pupils leaving primary school this summer who have not reached level four in their national curriculum tests. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an expansion to the literacy summer schools to cover 50 schools and some 1,600 pupils.

Mr. Dismore: I am sure that many hon. Members share my experience; time and again constituents visit my surgery with problems that have become far worse because they cannot read and write and therefore cannot

understand the letters they receive from the local council, the Department of Social Security and, especially, the privatised utilities. That is the result of the previous Government's education policy, which turned out illiterate and semi-literate pupils from primary schools who had little chance of succeeding at secondary school. May I compliment my hon. Friend on the welcome and imaginative scheme he has just announced, which will go a long way towards achieving the Government's target of ensuring that, by 2002, 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds leaving primary school reach their proper reading age?

Mr. Byers: The literacy summer schools are an exciting initiative. They are part of a pilot scheme which we hope to expand in future years to cover thousands of young people and hundreds of schools. We recognise that a person's future will be blighted for ever if they cannot read. It is a fundamental issue that has to be tackled. We intend to do so.

Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's announcement, but he needs to use some cavalry dash. It is plain that the scheme will be a success, so why does he not expand it straight away? It does not need a pilot and should be implemented immediately on a much greater scale.

Mr. Byers: It is rather ironic that the hon. Gentleman should make that comment when the Government of which he was a member had only one programme for literacy—the reading recovery programme—which was scrapped two years ago. We have been in office for two months. The pilot programmes are exciting and we intend to expand them in future years. I hope that, in due course, we may be able to initiate one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Training

Mr. Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to move young unemployed people into training. [4100]

Dr. Howells: The Government have a wide range of proposals to involve young people in quality training. We shall take them forward on a firm basis of consultation and partnership.

Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, which I am sure will be welcome to my constituents in Blackpool who have been relentlessly affected by high unemployment, particularly in the youth sector. Seasonal unemployment, particularly in coastal and seaside towns, remains an important issue. Many of my constituents, particularly women in low-paid jobs, have problems in that respect. What specific plans and assurances can he offer to take into account seasonal unemployment when training programmes are put into effect?

Dr. Howells: I am well aware of the special problems that arise from the seasonal nature of many employment opportunities in seaside and tourism centres such as my hon. Friend's constituency. I am also aware that young people there have the lowest staying-on rate in the west Lancashire area and that there is high unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds. My hon. Friend will know


that the Government have pledged themselves to a range of measures, included in Target 2000, to get all 16 and 17-year-olds on the road to a proper qualification. We plan to replace the failed youth training programme with high-quality training and we will give under-18s in work the right to study for an approved qualification. Combined with a concerted drive to attract new employment to west Lancashire, we believe that we can make real inroads into addressing youth unemployment.

Mr. Dorrell: The Government make a great deal of their welfare-to-work proposals. They have also made it absolutely clear that those proposals will be paid for by the so-called windfall levy. How will the schemes be funded when the windfall is exhausted?

Dr. Howells: I thought that that was obvious. The windfall levy will help to perform the trick that the previous Government, whom we displaced recently, could not perform—getting people back to work so that they start paying taxes and the unemployment rate and the benefits bill fall. That is how we will achieve our targets.

Technology College Status

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce his decision concerning the current round of bids for technology college status. [4102]

Ms Estelle Morris: I announced the names of the 16 successful schools on 18 June.

Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give favourable consideration to the application by Southlands school, when it is resubmitted? Will she accept that the school has the support of good business interests and fine financial support from the whole community? In the next round, favourable consideration will be important for Southlands, and for Gable Hall school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith).

Ms Morris: I am glad that, from what my hon. Friend says, Southlands school intends to rebid for technology status in the next round. Many good schools put in good-quality bids, but were not awarded technology or other specialist status this year. My hon. Friend will know that we are about to announce new criteria for technology status that will mean that the benefits can be shared with other schools and the community. I hope that such co-operation will be reflected in the new bid from Southlands school.

Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister tell me precisely why she refused the application by the Robert Smyth school in my constituency for technology status? Her letter to me did not do so.

Ms Morris: As I have just said, we received far more applications for specialist status than we had resources to allocate. Some of the applications were very good and schools should not think that they have failed. I hope that they will be encouraged to try again and that the hon. and learned Gentleman will encourage the school in his constituency. If the school that he mentions would like

feedback on its application, perhaps we may talk outside the Chamber to ensure that it has the support to make an even better bid next time.

Job Security

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for improving job security; and if he will make a statement. [4104]

Mr. Alan Howarth: The best form of job security is knowing one can get another job if one has to. That is why we aim to deliver a successful economy with high and sustainable levels of employment and skilled and employable workers.

Mr. Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that one of the spin-offs of privatisation is that many people no longer qualify for protection from unfair dismissal, for holiday and sickness pay, or for other benefits that we used quaintly to associate with civilisation? Do we have any plans to return to the circumstances of the early 1980s, when more people qualified for such benefits?

Mr. Howarth: We are committed to basic human rights in the workplace—unlike the Conservatives. Many of us have been saddened and shocked by instances in our constituencies of bad employers abusing the deregulation introduced by the Conservatives and sacking employees before they attained employment rights. Those practices are ethically unacceptable and feckless. Employers should invest in the skills and loyalty of their work force.

Mr. Brady: Does the Minister accept that the introduction of schemes to subsidise employment for the long-term young unemployed will create a displacement effect? Will not that increase job insecurity for others?

Mr. Howarth: We do not contend that job subsidy schemes are likely to generate many new jobs; we believe that they will enhance the employability of many people in our work force and that that will strengthen Britain's competitive capacity.

Mr. Blizzard: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that people who are recovering from mental illness often have great difficulty obtaining employment. Will such people be able to benefit from the Government's welfare-to-work programme so that they can enjoy job security?

Mr. Howarth: We are concerned that, in the development of our welfare-to-work policies, attention is given to the needs of disabled people, including those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from mental illness.

Spending Priorities

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review his Department's spending priorities on young people's education. [4105]

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend intends to review all aspects of his Department's spending priorities, including


those in relation to young people's education, as part of his review of the Department's spending plans, according to the arrangements announced to the House on 11 June by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the information about the nature of the review. As he is considering the future use of resources, may I draw his attention to the excellent Office for Standards in Education report on the Pear Tree school in my constituency, which deals with children with severe learning difficulties? May I seek his assurance that the

review will address the deployment of resources in connection with the difficulties that the school has, after all the work that it has put in on its pupils, finding them appropriate training, jobs or other arrangements after their education is concluded?

Dr. Howells: I know of the special interest that the right hon. Gentleman takes in the excellent special needs teaching at the Pear Tree school and the tremendous results achieved there. We consider such matters a great priority and will certainly address them in the review that we are shortly to undertake. The results will be incorporated in the lifelong learning White Paper in the autumn.

Voting (Madam Speaker's Statement)

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. Members will be well aware of the inconvenience arising on many recent occasions from the exceptionally high numbers voting in the same Lobby, and of the time taken to complete Divisions. I believe that there has been some improvement in the past few days, but there may be scope for further amelioration of the problem.
Accordingly, following a recommendation by the Modernisation Committee, a third desk is to be added in each Division Lobby with effect from Monday 30 June, as a short-term solution, at least. I hope that, on the first few occasions, the Whips will be on hand in the Lobbies to assist Members. The Modernisation Committee will monitor progress and study longer-term options.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): May I first thank you for that statement, Madam Speaker? The Modernisation Committee was keen to move quickly, and we are happy to have your co-operation on the matter of the third desks.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 JUNE—Motion relating to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
Motion on the Satellite Television Service Regulations.
TUESDAY 1 JULY—Debate on the review of international development policies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
THURSDAY 3 JULY AND FRIDAY 4 JULY—Continuation of the Budget debate.
MONDAY 7 JULY—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for giving the business for next week and the following Monday. I should be grateful if she would outline the proposed arrangements for the Budget debate. Obviously, she has confirmed that next Friday represents the replacement of a non-sitting day.
Will the right hon. Lady also, as a matter of urgency, arrange for a statement to clarify whether Labour Members of Parliament have the freedom to take a full and active part in debate on the referendum campaigns in Scotland and Wales? I feel sure that the House will agree that such clarification is essential, following the explicit refutation of the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), whose reputation for integrity is respected throughout the House. Will the right hon. Lady also say whether there are to be different freedoms of expression for her Back-Bench colleagues according to whether they represent Welsh or Scottish constituencies?
Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) with regard to their ability to carry out duties in the House and to represent their constituents? Will she confirm that both Members are to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?
Finally, will the Leader of the House provide time for a statement on the tax-raising powers of a putative Scottish Parliament or Assembly, following the confusion in Scotland yesterday about the Government's intentions? She will no doubt wish to say when we can expect the White Paper detailing precisely what the Government intend in that regard. I am sure that she will wish to give a categorical assurance today that the White Paper will be produced in time to allow a thorough debate on its contents before the House rises for the summer recess.

Mrs. Taylor: First, I welcome the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) to her position


as shadow Leader of the House, and I welcome also the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to his position as her deputy.
On the Budget debate, I am pleased that we were able to accommodate the representations that were made. We have suggested that the debate should take place on what would have been a non-sitting Friday. It will be a non-voting day, and that will be for the convenience of hon. Members who may wish to speak in the debate, but who are not necessarily worried about speaking on the day on which we vote. We intend to reinstate the non-sitting Friday, and we will consult on that in due course.
In respect of the shadow Leader's comments on Labour Members and the referendums, there is no need for a debate on this matter next week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position perfectly clear yesterday, when he said that hon. Members were perfectly entitled to speak their mind. That remains the case.
So far as the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) are concerned, they remain Members of Parliament, and are entitled to use the facilities of this House. They have been suspended from the parliamentary Labour party—which is not a matter for this House—and have been reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner because of the allegations that have been made. The custom, and the insistence of the Parliamentary Commissioner, is that there should be no discussion of cases under review.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: What about Neil Hamilton?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a certain ex-Member of this House. He will find it very difficult to find anything that I said about that case when I was a Back Bencher. Conservative Members ought to obey the rules of this House, and help to make our system of standards and privileges work. They should stand by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the new system that we have instigated. If Conservative Members want a debate on how we govern ourselves and rule out sleaze, we should be willing to look at that in due course.
As for the tax-raising powers of a Scottish Parliament, I think that the only confusion existed in the newspapers yesterday. There is no change whatsoever in the situation. I can confirm that the White Paper will be published next month, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have made clear that there will be a debate on it.

Mr. David Winnick: As someone who never allows himself to be gagged under any circumstances, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have a statement next week on the pressures that were applied to stop the Princess of Wales attending a meeting yesterday on land mines—a humanitarian subject which is certainly not a party political matter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in today's The Daily Telegraph, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Lord Deedes said that Conservative Members were totally wrong to stop the Princess coming here?

Mrs. Taylor: The Government are not responsible for who attends meetings in Westminster, but I agree that this

should not be a party political matter—land mines are too serious for that. I hope that Members from all parties support the actions that the Government have taken.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I warmly welcome the Government's second thoughts on the arrangements for the Budget debate. We are grateful. May I draw attention to the difficulty that would have been caused—I hope that it will not happen in future—by having very important Divisions late on a Thursday evening for hon. Members with far-flung constituencies? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
May I also draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, under the Jopling proposals, it was the plan—I thought that it was agreed on both sides of the House—that, on Thursdays before non-sitting Fridays, there would not be late votes. In future, will she be able to give us advance notice of non-sitting constituency Fridays, as they are important for the planning of Members' diaries?
Finally, is it true that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is this afternoon meeting the directors of McDonald's to impress on them the importance of renewing the sourcing of their products from British beef producers? If so, and if he is not successful in those representations, can we have an early statement and debate so that we can impress on McDonald's and the other burger chains what damage they have done to British industry—to the farming industry in particular, but not exclusively—so that they can at long last apologise for the damage done, and perhaps eat humble pie?

Mrs. Taylor: With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Budget, the expanded debate is partly the result of pressures and partly because we were reluctant to have votes late on a Thursday night when there could have been a succession of votes. Despite the comments of Conservative Members, it is a good principle that we should try to avoid a succession of votes late on a Thursday whenever possible. Clearly, it will not always be possible, but if we can avoid it, we should. There will, however, be pressures on time in July, and we want to discuss how we can best deal with them through the usual channels. I hope that we can get some agreement there.
On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his meeting with McDonald's, I can confirm that that meeting has taken place. I believe that significant progress was made, and that McDonald's will make a statement later in the day. The fact that we have got to this stage shows how successful the new Ministers have been in turning around a difficult situation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House try to find time for a debate on channel tunnel safety as soon as possible? She will have noticed the questions on the Order Paper relating to a number of incidents disclosed by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which make it clear that there is consistent over-running, incidents such as doors falling off trains without being noticed, as well as a number of other questions that ought to be raised on the Floor of the House as rapidly as possible.

Mrs. Taylor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-term concern about those issues. I am not sure that


it will be possible to find time for the debate that she requests, but those matters are of concern to many people, especially as we approach the holiday period. She will be aware that Transport questions are next Tuesday.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why the Government have allowed a press release to be issued by a Government Department—by a Minister—carrying private advertising and the logos of a private company in colour? Surely that is very nearly approaching sleaze. It ought to be stopped, because it is Government money, not private money. Will she investigate that matter, and ensure that it is stopped and that a statement is issued about it next week?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I doubt if anything of that sort is unprecedented.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend consider a short statement next week, giving some explanation as to why it should take the Home Office and the Metropolitan police until the end of September to come to a conclusion on the tragic murder of one of their own—Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher? Is it not extraordinary that the conventional view is against the evidence of the senior ballistics expert of the British Army, George Styles, the evidence given by Hugh Thomas, the consultant surgeon in Belfast, and the professional evidence of probably the most distinguished Home Office pathologist this century, Bernard Knight, who was put in charge at Cromwell street? Is that not a matter of some urgency?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. As my right hon. Friend said, the case remains open and the Metropolitan police will of course consider any new evidence. On the delay, it is important that any examination of evidence should be thorough. I do not think that we can find time for a debate on the subject in the near future.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Leader of the House reconsider her decision not to allow us a debate next week on Members of Parliament being able to speak their mind on, for example, devolution, without the threat of expulsion from the parliamentary party? She will have heard what both the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and the Secretary of State for Wales said yesterday; there is a clear distinction, so they cannot both be right, and there cannot be an innocent explanation for the one who is wrong.
The Leader of the House will remember that the Prime Minister said that Ministers who deceived the House, directly or indirectly, should resign. Is not the proper course to have an early debate, so that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the Secretary of State for Wales can explain their respective positions, and we can judge and take the appropriate action?

Mrs. Taylor: There is no need for any debate or action of the kind suggested. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear yesterday that hon. Members are entitled to speak their mind.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on the Government's proposals for the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, and in particular the future operations of Nirex?

Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in that matter over many years. He can make representations to the Ministers involved, but I cannot promise him a debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Pursuant to the answer that I received from the Leader of the House regarding the Northern Ireland Grand Committee last Thursday, when she said, in an answer recorded at column 461, that there would be opportunities for questions, may I press again for a meeting of the Committee with a period of questions, bearing in mind the fact that, while I welcome the participation of other hon. Members in Northern Ireland business, there seems to be some syndicating or mental telepathy, as, in the most recent Northern Ireland questions, only one Northern Ireland Member appeared on the list? That makes it impossible for us to deal with constituency matters. Might further consideration therefore be given to a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

Mrs. Taylor: I have no responsibility for the Order Paper, but I recall what the hon. Gentleman said last week, and I will discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Flynn: To identify sleaze in the House, would not the Opposition agree that a debate is needed urgently on early-day motion 164?
[That this House is shocked that the Leader of the Opposition accepted a gift of £20,000 from David Steene, managing director of the City Mortgage Corporation which specialises in marketing oppressive mortgage deals to vulnerable and unsophisticated people who are judged to be high risks by reputable companies; deplores CMC's high interest rates that are doubled if a single payment is missed in order that increasing debts lead to homes being repossessed to the profit of CMC; is appalled that thousands of CMC's victims are left homeless and in debt; notes that the CMC Victims Group has accused the company of malpractice; and agrees with the Group's call that the Leader of the Opposition should give the £20,000 to the victims of the CMC in order to convince the House that he is opposed to sleaze.]
The motion gives details of how the Leader of the Opposition accepted a gift of £20,000 from Mr. David Steene, who operates an extraordinary business called the City Mortgage Corporation that specialises in giving mortgages to vulnerable, high-risk people at high rates of interest that are often doubled in the course of the mortgage, in order to gain possession of the houses for Mr. Steene's own profit. The victims of the organisation have described his business practices as atrocious, and accused him of malpractice. Is it right that the Leader of the Opposition should have been elected on the basis of £20,000—money that is highly dubious, if not from an immoral source?

Mrs. Taylor: I can understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter. He can of course raise it with Sir Gordon Downey, and perhaps it would be better dealt with by him than in a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the qualifications and criteria for holding the position of Secretary of State in the Government of which she is such a prominent member? It need only be a short debate, because the principal participants would be the Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and perhaps the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), who has also had recent occasion to encounter the Secretary of State for Wales, although in a slightly different context.
It might even be useful to the House if the Prime Minister himself were prepared to participate in that short debate, which would help to illuminate the matters so ably identified by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's question has anything to do with the fact that the Opposition have no shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps he will find some Welsh connections instead of his Scottish ones. We will take no lectures from a party that not only has no shadow Secretary of State for Wales but no Welsh Members.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to arrange for a meeting of the House of Commons Commission next week? This Parliament has been existence for many weeks, and I understand that the Commission has not met. Many hon. Members are aware of several rumbling industrial relations problems relating to the employees of the House. The matter should be urgently addressed by the Commission. That is its business if it meets; if it does not, it is the business of all 659 of us to ensure that proper good industrial relations are maintained.

Mrs. Taylor: The House of Commons Commission has now been established, but the domestic Committees have not yet been set up. I do not know when the next meeting of the Commission will be, but I anticipate that there will be one before the summer recess.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the right hon. Lady consider the need for a debate next week on the ability of hon. Members to speak their minds? Does she accept that she quoted the Prime Minister selectively? Yesterday, he said:
People are perfectly entitled to state their position"—
not their minds—but after only a comma he continued:
provided, of course, that they do so in accordance with the rules of the parliamentary party."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 837.]
Does she not feel that it is necessary to have a debate on whether the Labour party asserts privileges and rules above those of each and every Member of this House?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked me to reconsider the need for a debate; I do not think that there is a need for a debate.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I urge my right hon. Friend to make time for an urgent debate on the law

of perjury and its application? Is she aware that in 1995, 193 people were sent to prison for perjury, and that, since 1979, the longest prison sentence for the offence was a mere five years? Does she agree that perjury is very serious, and that there is a case for the Home Secretary to review the appropriate sentence to be meted out to people who knowingly perjure themselves in the courts of this land?

Mrs. Taylor: The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that perjury is a very serious matter. I will bring his comments to the attention of the Law Officers.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I press the right hon. Lady again on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? It is a little more serious than was suggested by the glib way in which she dismissed it. After the point to which my hon. Friend referred, the Prime Minister said:
I can give my personal assurance that no such threat was made."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 837.]
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) claims that that is not correct, and that the Prime Minister has been misled. Would it not therefore be right that he should come to the House and clarify the situation as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said, but I remind the hon. Gentleman, who may not know this because he is now on the Back Benches, not on the Front Bench, that the leader of his party wrote to the Prime Minister this morning about this matter, and the Prime Minister confirmed that he had investigated the allegations, was satisfied with the result and that the matter was closed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that academic articles produced by Hull university politics department, entitled "Blair's Bastards", listed Labour Members who had voted on the most occasions against the Whip and who presumably had spoken out the most? I was second on that list. However, in 10 years, I have not had a dicky bird said to me by Whips or Ministers to seek to control that. Does that not show that there is a great deal of tolerance within the Labour party?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend proves that we do not need a debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I add to the calls for an early debate in Government time to consider the question of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is one of the most important Committees in the House, particularly in the present climate, and that it is absolutely imperative that it commands the greatest respect across the Floor of the House and beyond?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that only three Privy Counsellors have been nominated to the Committee, which, until 1940, was chaired by no less a person than the Prime Minister? Of the 11 Committee members, three are new Labour Members who simply cannot be expected to understand the proceedings and complications of the House after such a short time. Indeed, it would be extremely unfair to expect them to do so.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), to whom I gave notice that I would raise the matter, is in a particularly difficult position: not only is she brand new, but she is to sit on a Committee that will preside over the fate of her predecessor, Mr. Michael Brown. That creates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), to whom I also spoke before raising the matter this afternoon, was involved with Mr. David Hencke in receiving advance notification, to the benefit of the then Opposition, of the story that was to be run by The Guardian about a member of the Conservative party.
I invite the Leader of the House to consider this matter seriously. You, Madam Speaker, made it clear in the previous Parliament how seriously you regard the way in which the House is portrayed to people outside. The House's reputation is at stake; the Select Committee is charged with the task of representing the House to the outside world. I hope that the Leader of the House understands the serious points that I have raised, and will arrange for a debate.

Mrs. Taylor: After that speech, I am not sure that we need a debate, anyway. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to object to the establishment of that Committee, he had an opportunity to do so last evening. He chose not to do so, and the House is therefore entitled to note that he missed that opportunity.

Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after all statements have been made.

Mrs. Taylor: As I said, the hon. Gentleman could have objected last night. If the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges carries out its work quickly, it may be possible to have early debates on those matters in the House. As for the seniority of Committee members, the Committee is well balanced. Indeed, there are now more Privy Counsellors on the Committee than there were in the last Session of Parliament.

Mr. Alan Williams: First, I thank the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for the courteous and amicable way in which he notified me that he intended to raise this matter.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that if, having been shown documents by that journalist, hon. Members were excluded from Select Committees, we would never have a quorum on any of them? Will she also confirm, and thereby reassure the hon. Gentleman, that I did not seek membership of that Committee, but seem to acquire it as a geriatric endowment? If, as a member of that Committee, I find that I have privy access to any information that is not available to the Committee, I shall certainly inform the Committee of it, and not vote on the ensuing discussion.

Madam Speaker: I shall, of course, allow the Leader of the House to respond, but we are moving a very long

way away from next week's business. Questions to the Leader of the House should deal with next week's business. Does the right hon. Lady wish to respond?

Mrs. Taylor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Alan Clark: Surely one way out of the right hon. Lady's difficulties, which have been illustrated by my right hon. and hon. Friends, would be to arrange a debate on the Representation of the People Act 1949. That would allow us to discuss the effective disfranchisement of a part of two great cities in the United Kingdom, Glasgow and Liverpool, apparently on the authority of the Prime Minister. If the hon. Members concerned turned up in the House, where would they be expected to sit?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman makes strange suggestions. The fact that an hon. Member is suspended pending investigation does not interfere with his ability to represent constituents.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Several Conservative Members—in particular, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—have called for a debate about hon. Members misleading the House. They wanted a relatively short debate. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House bear it in mind that the debate would have to be a lot longer than that if we included all the ex-Tory Ministers who misled the House?
I am thinking of the ex-Home Secretary, who finished up in court nine times—a recidivist—because he misled the House so often. I am thinking of the previous Prime Minister, who misled the House when he said that his Government would get rid of the beef ban after Florence last November, and failed. I am thinking of all the rest of them who have been jumping up and down, who lined their pockets with consultancies. We could have a very long debate about that matter, and I encourage them all to turn up for it, so that we can examine all their records.

Mrs. Taylor: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend says. I have a difficulty, because, if I had to provide time for a debate of the length that he requests, I might not be able, even in the next few weeks, to announce when the summer recess will be.

Mrs. Theresa May: Bearing in mind the comment by the Prime Minister to the House yesterday that hon. Members have freedom of speech, provided that it is within the rules of their parliamentary party; in the light of the standing order endorsed by the parliamentary Labour party before the last election that guaranteed hon. Members freedom of speech; in the light of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in a debate in the House about his concerns that the Secretary of State for Wales had been reported as saying that disciplinary proceedings would be taken against any Member who spoke against devolution; and in the light of the admonition given by the Secretary of State for Wales to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West from the Dispatch Box at the end of that debate, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is urgent for us to have a debate in the House, not only on freedom of speech


for Members, but on the use of the Dispatch Box and statements by Ministers to indulge in parliamentary Labour party business?

Mrs. Taylor: That takes the prize for the cheek of the day. I do not believe that Labour Members are trying to discuss internal affairs at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that there is no need for a debate, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr. John Bercow: Can the right hon. Lady, on reflection, confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House next week explaining—not least for the benefit of new Members such as myself—how it was possible for him to investigate the dispute between the Secretary of State for Wales and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), without having spoken to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent?

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained that hon. Members are free to speak their minds. That is perfectly straightforward.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind opening words.
In view of the fact that Monday's and Tuesday's business is important but not desperately urgent, will she bear it in mind that it is desperately urgent for us to clarify a matter of extreme constitutional importance? Can we therefore arrange, at the very least, for the Secretary of State for Wales to give a personal statement?
The fact is that yesterday the Prime Minister said, in good faith, that he believed that no one had told an untruth. However, last night the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—whose integrity is not in dispute—made it quite plain that he did not agree with that position. The situation must be clarified. Will the right hon. Lady allow that to occur?

Mrs. Taylor: I repeat my welcome to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am sorry that, at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box for business questions, I cannot agree with one word he said. There are no constitutional implications, and there is no need for a personal statement. For the convenience of Opposition Front-Bench Members, I shall ensure that they receive a copy of the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to the Leader of the Opposition today.
Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I instruct hon. Members that they must make points of order and not points of frustration. Several hon. Members who were not called during business questions are seeking to catch my eye. I stress that they must raise proper points of order.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I promise you that I am not one whit frustrated, and I seek your guidance. If it were true that an hon. Member had been threatened with being prevented from speaking his mind and threatened with expulsion from the parliamentary party, would such a threat—if made—constitute a contempt of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. If he touches upon a matter of privilege, he must write to me: I shall not have an exchange across the Floor of the House on that matter. He is a long-standing Member of Parliament, so he will know that I do not deal in hypothetical answers.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House asked why I did not object to the formation of the Standards and Privileges Committee last night. I did not object because the motion was not debatable. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: This is not a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not need any help.
A point of order must raise a matter with which I can deal. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) raises a point of frustration. He is attempting to answer the Leader of the House, and he cannot do that through me, as Speaker. He must raise a point of order with which I can deal. I shall listen to his point of order if it concerns me.

Mr. Howarth: My point of order is quite simple, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm to the House that a motion such as that moved last night is simply not debatable? If an objection had been registered, the Committee could not have been formed until some time in the future, thereby delaying the matter.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct—and he has now put a correct point of order to me. He could have objected to the motion last night. That would have delayed the establishment of the Committee, and the matter would have come before the House again. The hon. Gentleman could have objected if he had wished to do so, but, out of kindness to the House, he did not.

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The concept of internal exile is constitutionally very vague and almost unknown. Is it in order for you to discover whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar)—who has not, to the best of my knowledge, been seen in the precincts of Westminster, or certainly in the Chamber, since shortly


after the election—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who has not been seen in the Chamber for a week, have been told by the Government Whips Office that they must not come to the House? If that is so, they would not be able to represent the interests of their constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Let me deal with one point of order at a time. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Burns: Why?

Madam Speaker: I am not concerned with the internal matters of any political party. As far as I am concerned, the matter has been referred to Sir Gordon Downey, who, in turn, will no doubt inform the appropriate Committee. I am concerned with that process, and not with the internal matters of any political party.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the guardian of the rights of Parliament, and we poor, miserable, downtrodden Back Benchers look to you to act in just that way.
The Leader of the House says that the Prime Minister is personally satisfied with the explanation that he has been offered by the Secretary of State for Wales. The House, however, and particularly the Opposition, are not satisfied. Who is supreme in this matter—the House or the Prime Minister? May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to clarify the point? Will you ask the Prime Minister to come to the House to re-clarify the situation, where he may have inadvertently not quite got his answer right yesterday?

Madam Speaker: I have no authority, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to demand that any Member or Minister come to the House to make a statement. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further to secure a debate, he must do so through the usual channels.

Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a question of the accuracy of the Official Report. In the context of the questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, he raised matters concerning the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).
The Prime Minister said:
I have just made it clear that I investigated the matter this morning. There is no truth in these allegations."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 838.]
Subsequently, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has denied that position. Is it possible to have the Official Report corrected?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member is seeking to amend in any way the Official Report, he must see the right hon. Gentleman who made the statement—the Prime Minister—along with the Editor of Hansard.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you confirm that

it is not only the duty but the right of Members of Parliament to enter any part of this Parliament on any occasion, and to express their view in any way that they are so responsible for? Would you confirm also, from your long experience, that it is exceedingly difficult to keep members of the Labour party quiet for any length of time?

Madam Speaker: All I can say in response to the hon. Lady is, "Well said."

Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that items of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are tremendously important to the House, especially when they refer, as in this instance, to events surrounding a Secretary of State, a member of the Government.
In answer to a question earlier, the Leader of the House referred to the Prime Minister's reply, and said that he had carried out a full investigation. I ask you, as Speaker, to ensure that the details of that investigation, as to who was consulted before the Prime Minister responded to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, are tabled and made available to the House.

Madam Speaker: I have no authority to require a right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the House to put before the House any investigations that he has carried out that are of an internal nature, which in this instance they obviously are.

Mr. Edward Gamier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you able to confirm that most periods of business questions, both in this Parliament and in the previous one, lasted for very nearly an hour? At least that was the position sometimes. Today, in your discretion, you brought the proceedings to an end at about 4 o'clock or 5 minutes past 4.
As a result, I was unable to catch your eye to raise with the Leader of the House the important question of new age travellers in my constituency. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, that on other occasions Back Benchers who wish to raise constituency matters with the Leader of the House may be given a somewhat longer opportunity to catch your eye?

Madam Speaker: As I thought, the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point of frustration, not a point of order. I can tell him and the House as a whole that business questions, on average, last 35 minutes. That is the average since I have been Speaker. I keep a record, and I always have the details with me.

BILL PRESENTED

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES

Mrs. Ann Taylor, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Davies and Dr. David Clark, presented a Bill to make provision for the alteration of salaries payable under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make for the guidance of hon. Members who may wish to take part in the debate. I wish to make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which all Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. As many hon. Members know, police and security are the principal excluded subjects. I hope that that is of some guidance to hon. Members.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
I welcome the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that they will continue the bipartisan approach that we took on Northern Ireland matters in the previous Parliament.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises spending of almost £4,000 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March this year, that brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to almost £7,000 million, which is an increase of just over 4 per cent. on the 1996–97 outturn.
The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1995–96. The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. I remind the House that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services are not covered by the order.
I am sure that the House would prefer the draft order to be considered in some form of local Assembly. The Government's overriding objective in Northern Ireland is to achieve progress towards a lasting political settlement that will enable powers to be devolved to local administration. That is why we are anxious to press ahead with multi-party talks, which we believe offer the best chance of securing a comprehensive settlement that addresses and resolves the fundamental concerns of all participants. Despite some horrific recent setbacks, that remains the Government's firm objective. It was the subject of the Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons yesterday.
Hon. Members will appreciate that the draft order reflects the previous Government's spending allocations. I am pleased to announce that it is possible to reallocate some £4 million for schools this year, and that is reflected in the estimates.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: How much of the extra £4 million will be targeted at social need in schools in badly deprived areas?

Mr. Murphy: The purpose of the £4 million virement is to ensure that teachers are kept in their jobs, and as a consequence that class sizes are kept to a minimum. I am sure that much of that spending will be in areas where social need is obvious. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter.
Our priorities are not necessarily the same as those of the previous Government. My party overwhelmingly won the election on a manifesto committed to a reduction in class sizes and health service bureaucracy, and on pledges on the economy and welfare to work. These figures do not necessarily reflect those priorities.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister referred to bureaucracy. What role do Northern Ireland Ministers play in curbing spending, bearing in mind the latest revelation that, according to law, departmental heads—the civil servants—are really in charge?

Mr. Murphy: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for those matters, winds up the debate, he will take it into account.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has-rightly—stated that Departments will be expected to work within the 1997–98 and 1998–99 spending ceilings announced by the former Government. Nevertheless, we shall be reviewing allocations within those limits in the light of our own priorities.
That is why the Government have launched a comprehensive spending review that will focus on the medium term—to the end of this Parliament and beyond. On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced details of our approach to public spending in the medium term and how our comprehensive spending review will be taken forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already announced a comprehensive review of programmes in Northern Ireland. It will be a rootand-branch examination of every area of spending. In her address to the chief executives' forum on 28 May, my right hon. Friend announced that there would be extensive consultation on public expenditure priorities as the review progressed.
I cannot of course speculate on the outcome of the review or the consultations; but they do mark a new and exciting departure from previous practice. We intend to consult widely over the next couple of months—indeed, we have already begun. I shall be inviting all the political parties in Northern Ireland, local authorities, and representatives of the voluntary sector, of business and commerce and of the trade unions, to express their views on spending priorities for Northern Ireland. I believe that to be a step in the right direction, in parallel, I hope, with the talks process.
I intend to highlight the main items in the estimates without going into too much detail, as I am sure that hon. Members will have examined them. I begin with the Department of Agriculture, where there is net provision of some £30 million to fund European Union and national agricultural support measures. The vote also includes moneys for structural improvements and for grants, and funds for farming in special areas. It includes, furthermore, provision for the development of agriculture and the agricultural products industry, for scientific and veterinary services, for farm support, for enhancement of the countryside, and for fisheries and forestry services. The vote also provides resources for the rural development programme and the Rivers Agency.
Hon. Members will also note the provision for the Department of Economic Development. They will be aware that well over £150 million is required for the


Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland, which plays an important part in attracting and supporting industrial development there. In 1996–97, the board supported about 35 inward investment projects offering nearly 5,000 new jobs. Northern Ireland Members will be aware, too, of one of the latest such projects—Seagate in Londonderry. Unfortunately, that same city has undergone the loss of several hundred jobs in the past few days; so the one tends to cancel out the other. It is important, however, to continue to put money into the IDB.
The amount to be provided for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's own small business agency, is £31 million. That will allow it to maintain its excellent track record of developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms sector in Northern Ireland.
There is also £14 million for the Northern Ireland tourist board. It was noticeable during the ceasefire that many more people expressed an interest in going to Northern Ireland. The ending of the ceasefire, and the more recent disorders, have had a marked effect on visitor numbers. They are still pretty healthy, but they could be an awful lot better.

Mr. David Trimble: The Minister seems to be repeating a statement that is regularly made about tourism in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he will agree that the reaction that he is describing is based on a misapprehension, as Northern Ireland continues to be, just as it always has been, the part of the United Kingdom with the lowest crime rate. There is thus no reason why anyone should be discouraged by a fear of crime from going there. It is also quite wrong of the tourist board and others to repeat the canard when they should be tackling tourism more effectively.

Mr. Murphy: I accept that point entirely. My experience over the past few weeks as a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland is that the overwhelming percentage of the geography of Northern Ireland is no different from—indeed, it is better than—parts of the Principality that I represent. However, it is of some interest that, if we talk, as we must now, about the money that is voted for the Department of Economic Development, there is also a need this very week and in the weeks ahead to understand that if, throughout the world, pictures of disorder are shown on television, clearly, industrial development is affected.
We hope and pray that the people in Northern Ireland who are responsible for disorder will be made aware that, in many ways, they are damaging the prospects for Northern Ireland's economy. It is a most important factor to take into account. I understand what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says, and I believe that all of us wish the Secretary of State well in her endeavours to bring about peace.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: From what the Minister says and because he mentioned United Technologies leaving Londonderry, is he suggesting that, whatever difficulty United Technologies had, last year's rioting in the republican areas of Londonderry, when 22,500 petrol bombs were thrown

over the space of a couple of days, in a well-orchestrated and pre-planned attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was the final nail in the coffin of that company?

Mr. Murphy: I should not like to talk about what exactly caused that company's departure, but I am sure that most of us—indeed all of us—would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rioting certainly did not help.
Nearly £200 million is allocated for the Training and Employment Agency. It provides nearly 15,000 training places under the job skills training programme and nearly 8,000 places for long-term unemployed adults under action for community employment, the community work programme and Enterprise Ulster, developing the skills of work forces in Northern Ireland. I hope that, next week, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his Budget—and undoubtedly he will spend much of his time dealing with the welfare-to-work proposals, which formed an important part of our manifesto—much of the good work that will result will be reflected in Northern Ireland, where it is desperately needed.
The Department of the Environment spends nearly £200 million on roads, transport and ports. Some £220 million will provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement, which means that the housing executive will be able to start some 800 new houses, while housing associations will start more than 1,000 new dwellings in Northern Ireland.
Expenditure on water and sewerage services is estimated at nearly £200 million—at £184 million, to be exact. I am sure that Northern Ireland Members will be aware that much needs to be done in relation to the water and sewerage infrastructure. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the noble Lord Dubs, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have examined the matter in detail.
A total of £183 million is for environmental and other services: the Environment and Heritage Service, the Planning Service, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, the Construction Service, the Land Registers of Northern Ireland and, of course, urban regeneration. There is no doubt that everyone associated with Northern Ireland is aware that the money that has been spent over the years on urban regeneration pays dividends. Some £37 million will be made available under the European Union peace and reconciliation programme, of which £28 million will be funded from EU receipts. Additionally, some £44 million goes to the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.
The Department of Education seeks a total of £1,408 million, which sounds a lot, but is actually a decrease of nearly 2 per cent. on last year's provision. I know that hon. Members from all over Northern Ireland have expressed concern in the past few years about the reduction in the education budget. As they are aware, education is a very high priority for my Government. We believe that we must give high priority to class sizes and maintaining standards in education.
I am also concerned about capital projects. Although we have put millions of pounds into such projects in Northern Ireland, the state of many schools in the Province remains unsatisfactory. I am pleased that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde


(Dr. Godman) highlighted, an extra £4 million has now been made available for schools from another source. Local universities, student support, youth, sport, community and cultural activities are provided for.
At the Department of Health and Social Services, £1,518 million is to be spent on hospitals, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and some other services. There is, of course, extra money for grants to voluntary bodies and so on.
It is a high priority of my Government to reduce bureaucracy in the health service in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is also a high priority to reduce waiting lists, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will touch on those matters when he winds up the debate.
Nearly £2,000 million is for social security benefit expenditure, administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an 8.3 per cent. increase on last year and covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1997, but an increase in the number of beneficiaries. I hope that next week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will refer to that, because it is important to emphasise that the thrust of our policy is to take people off benefit and put them back to work. That applies as much to Northern Ireland as anywhere else in the kingdom.
Finally, I have to mention my own Department, the Department of Finance and Personnel, where some £5.8 million is sought for the community relations programme. In addition, nearly £2 million has been made available through funding from European Union receipts under the peace and reconciliation programme.
I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply to any points raised in the debate.
This is a short but important debate. It is important because, in many ways, it is about the other Northern Ireland, the real Northern Ireland. It is not about the horrors that we have witnessed or the sometimes frustrating talks process, vital though that is. It is about jobs, schools and hospitals; it is about the quality of life for 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland, whose needs and aspirations are the same as those of anyone else in the United Kingdom. I hope and pray that we can achieve a settlement that will mean that we can concentrate on the social and economic needs of the people of the Province. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I return the compliments and welcome the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), to his post at the Northern Ireland Office. He has a very responsible job, and I was interested in the way in which he presented the estimates. As he rightly recognised, we have a new, fresh team. I thank him for the welcome that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and me. I must also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran). He is now an Opposition Whip and therefore no longer frozen in silence, as was the tradition when we were in government. He will be playing an active role in the proceedings of the House. I recognise the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), and look forward to hearing him wind up the debate.
The Minister will not be surprised if I keep my remarks fairly brief, partly because, as someone who has just been invited to take on this responsibility, my first task is to listen. I am sure that there will be some interesting contributions, which will enable me to learn a little more about the issues affecting constituents in the Province.
I was interested to hear the Minister's detailed comments on policy. It is important to put it on record that the Northern Ireland economy enjoys its best prospects for generations. We sincerely share the hope that that continues. Unemployment in May was at its lowest for almost 17 years. At 8.4 per cent. of the work force, it is still too high and there were some disturbing announcements this week that the Minister mentioned, but the overall picture is positive.
Conservative policies delivered low inflation, low taxation and low interest rates for Northern Ireland. That framework, together with a flexible labour market and the removal of burdens on business, has ensured that Northern Ireland firms remain competitive in an increasingly competitive global economy. I hope that my experience as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry will be of benefit during debates on what the Minister rightly called the real Northern Ireland economy, away from the troubles that have beset the Province.
Manufacturing exports were worth more than £3 billion in 1995–96—an increase of almost one fifth. The Province received more inward investment that year than ever before, with 35 projects, worth £430 million, creating or safeguarding almost 5,000 new jobs.
In one respect, 1995–96 was unique. The IRA ceasefire gave new hope to everyone in Northern Ireland. Figures released recently by the Industrial Development Board show that inward investment and business confidence were dealt a clear blow by the IRA's return to violence. I endorse the Minister's comments about the consideration that those who threaten or carry out violence must give to the disturbance that they cause to the economic prospects of the citizens of the Province. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition confirmed yesterday that we are anxious to continue the bipartisan approach to the peace process, provided that the Government's actions continue to be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I echo those comments.
The paramilitary ceasefires enabled the previous Government to reduce spending on law and order by almost £300 million between 1995–96 and 1998–99, according to the estimates that we set out. Those funds have been released and earmarked for improving the quality of life for the people of Northern Ireland. That should be taken carefully into account if the problems increase, because that reallocation of resources cannot be sustained unless the IRA lays down its weapons once more.
The Opposition will work closely with the Government to bring about a new ceasefire, but the onus remains firmly on the IRA. The Prime Minister made that clear yesterday.
I should like clarification on some general points. I listened carefully to the Minister. Away from the troubles, there may be less inter-party agreement on how to keep the Northern Ireland economy vibrant. I do not disagree about the need to bring down class sizes. I also concur with some of the Minister's other comments, but we must be clear about some of the principles that the


Conservative Government set in train. Northern Ireland benefits from the current fiscal arrangements by £3 billion a year. In 1995–96, public spending per capita was almost £1,400 higher in Northern Ireland than in England. Will the Minister confirm that he has no plans to change those arrangements and that the more disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom, particularly those in the Province, will continue to receive extra financial support from the Exchequer?
The Prime Minister yesterday confirmed his wish to devolve power to Northern Ireland when circumstances permit. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce tax-raising powers for a devolved Assembly?
The private finance initiative has much to offer the taxpayer. The Northern Ireland Office has signed a small number of deals, worth about £4 million. It is imperative that more use is made of the PFI in Northern Ireland. It seems to have been endorsed by the Labour Government, but the disruption of the team that was running it has led to a sense of drift. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the removal of people who have tried to get the PFI going and the various reviews that are taking place will not disadvantage the people of Northern Ireland by causing delays in the projects that the PFI could assist. What action is being taken to ensure that the PFI benefits the Province?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a completely new set of assumptions about growth, unemployment and other key economic factors. We believe those assumptions generally to be over-cautious. Can the Minister explain their effect on the services provided to the people of Northern Ireland and the higher taxes that they and the rest of us may be expected to pay?
I am concerned when I hear about root-and-branch reviews of every aspect of public expenditure. The Government seem to have come in on a wave of enthusiasm for reviews. I hope that the Province is not burdened by too many reviews, as they may well be a substitute for effective action.
Will the Minister assure me that Northern Ireland will not be penalised by the rigid approach of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that there should be no transfers between headings of expenditure and, in the broader Budget sense, no virements between Departments, even if resources that are freed up in one section of expenditure could be beneficial to another? I understand the restraint of using the Red Book projections on public expenditure for the current year and the forward year, but what happens within those caps? Are there movements between headings, and will that affect the estimates that have been laid before the House today?
Those points aside, I am pleased to offer the Opposition's support for the order. We shall certainly not seek to divide the House, and I assure hon. Members that I shall be listening extremely carefully to the rest of the debate.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The question by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) about reviews was rather rich coming from him. Many Scottish Tories fervently wish that the

Conservative Government had assessed the likely impact of imposing the poll tax in Scotland. Had that Government done so, the Tories might still have had some Scottish representatives in the House.
I shall be brief, as hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies wish to speak. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton was right to say that the order relates to everyday matters. However, as The Irish Times pointed out a couple of days ago, we still face
the pernicious threat of further IRA violence.
As that editorial pointed out,
Drumcree looms on Sunday week".
I begin by asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about funding. I start with a question about the new passenger ferry service link to Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre. As he knows, living on the Clyde, the service has long been attractive to the people of Campbeltown, Carradale, Tarbert and elsewhere. It could help to develop a useful tourist link between the west highlands, particularly the Mull of Kintyre, and the beautiful Province of Northern Ireland.
I was deeply unhappy that the previous Administration rejected—I thought in a squalid way—the use of a Caledonian MacBrayne passenger vessel for such a service, but that is in the past and that Government are now in internal exile. How much has the Northern Ireland Office spent on the project? Are there any forecasts in terms of the number of jobs that are likely to be created in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and what is the assessment of likely passenger volume on the ferry service?
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned the proposed Assembly. How will its acceptability be assessed? Will it be a costly exercise? In Scotland, we are undergoing a similar process, which will cost some money. How much thought has been given to that? Let me say in passing that I shall be delighted if the anachronistic first-past-the-post system is rejected in favour of a more democratic system.
Although I did not come here to make my hon. Friend the Minister work, I refer to the second report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, entitled, "Underachievement in Northern Ireland Secondary Schools". For about three months, I was a member of the Select Committee. I am concerned about the funds that are directed, by way of targeting social need, to children who live in socially and economically deprived areas. As a Scots Member with a keen and deep interest in Northern Ireland matters, I do not consider that the Department of Education has a very good record in that respect and I say that with some regret.
The report was published just before Parliament was dissolved. Paragraph ii on page xxvi is entitled "School funding and social disadvantage". It states:
It is quite clear that the figure of five per cent (for Targeting Social Need) is simply based on previous expenditure. TSN funding is money that would have been spent on analogous education projects, but with a new name. The five per cent figure does not seem to have been arrived at by a process which recognised TSN as a priority.
That is the key sentence. I hope that my hon. Friend will—dare I use the word—review and analyse the targeting of social need policy as matters seem to have gone badly awry.
The paragraph continues:
DENI should initiate debate and consult widely about the appropriate amount of the schools' budget to allocate to this major policy.
I hope that my hon. Friend will examine those matters closely. As I am one of the authors of the report, I should refrain from saying that it is a fine piece of work—however, it is.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at times other areas have been disadvantaged by hidden deprivation? As some children and not others receive funds for school meals, school budgets receive different amounts, and that affects the income available to schools in order to supply the required standard of education.

Dr. Godman: That was a fine intervention. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have to root out the disadvantage and inequality that are inflicted on many people of all ages in their everyday lives.
I am concerned by the way in which money is directed towards schools in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not disagree that too much money has gone to fee-paying schools. However, we shall have the opportunity to discuss that on another occasion.
I said that I would be brief and I shall try to keep that promise. I now refer to support for the voluntary sector. I was delighted that the Secretary of State addressed the annual general meeting of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. I am proud to say that I am closely associated with that organisation, which does remarkably good work in all Northern Ireland constituencies. I would impress on my hon. Friend the Minister—if he needs such heavy-handed impression—not to overlook the legitimate demands of voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland, which do such splendid work in both communities and help to bring them together. I remind the Minister, although he probably does not need it, that he and I, with other hon. Members, met representatives of Playboard yesterday. That organisation does fine work and I ask the Minister to consider any entreaties from Playboard representatives with the sympathy that they deserve.
My final point is one that is also close to my heart. What sums have been earmarked to provide assistance to fire-bombed churches and Orange halls that have recently been the targets of thugs? On that issue, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the estimable Canon Sean Connolly should be warmly complimented for his decision to suspend Saturday evening masses in Harryville? That is a magnanimous gesture and I hope that the representatives of the Orange Order and of the Garvaghy road residents association take a leaf out of that estimable man's book. He has set a fine example for others to follow.
I have mentioned the need to direct money more effectively to those in need, by targeting social need policy. I have also mentioned the need to help the voluntary sector and those who have suffered damage at the hands of vicious thugs. I hope for responsible and sympathetic answers on those issues from my hon. Friend the Minister when he winds up.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I, too, welcome the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary to the Front Bench. I also welcome the hon. Members for

Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) to their new responsibilities. I have been interested to hear the comments from the Minister, the shadow Minister and our Scottish cousin, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).
I remind the House that this is the only opportunity that Members from Northern Ireland have to raise matters that concern their constituencies. Madam Speaker has instructed the House that we are not allowed to discuss certain issues, so, although I am sorely tempted, I will not do so.
We have a new Labour Government and, perhaps, a new broom. My colleagues and I will be interested to see what is done by those who, until a short time ago, sat on the Opposition Benches. They made many comments about Northern Ireland issues and gave us the impression that they would do all sorts of things when they entered government. I will mention some of those issues today and we will watch to see whether some of the promises made are kept.
We are already a little nervous, because the new Government will stick to the same budgets, but we will be interested to see whether the budgets will be redistributed. We have commented on that in the past and we will do so in the future. I hope that I am allowed to mention the ferries, which will bring tourists back and forth. They will be a big advantage for both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I caution all hon. Members about proportional representation. Its effect is that every person who stands in an election becomes the enemy of his or her party colleagues. The system creates great dissension among party members in a constituency. People should consider carefully before introducing that system, democratic as it may seem. It is a disaster for party discipline.
The Minister of State mentioned water and sewerage. I remind him that one of the largest polluters in Northern Ireland is the Department of the Environment. We have a lot of pollution in Northern Ireland and we have fought continually to solve that problem. It is unfortunate that the poacher and the gamekeeper wear the same clothes and are, in fact, the same person. Until that is sorted out, the pollution problem in Northern Ireland will not be solved.
I also wish to raise the issue of the number of road safety officers in Northern Ireland. Sadly, we have the worst road safety record in the United Kingdom. I had good support on the matter from members of the Government when they were in opposition. It is proposed that the number of road safety officers is to be reduced from 13 to 11, but I look forward to hearing that the number will be maintained at 13.
The Under-Secretary may recall serving on several Committees with me when road safety was mentioned. I look forward to his comments when he winds up. I hope that he will forgive me if I mention a route in my constituency—the A6 Moneynick road which runs from Belfast to Londonderry through Toome Bridge. It must be one of the most dangerous roads in Northern Ireland. When the Government consider the budgets, they should include the roads budget and give the go-ahead for the Toome bypass. The road runs through farming country and cars that are going very fast use the side roads. That means a lot of accidents and deterioration of the roads, which is costing money.
I am sure that Ministers will remember that I have raised the issue of quangos in the House before, because it is a favourite subject of mine. As Ministers responsible for Northern Ireland, they will soon experience Northern Ireland quangos. I would be interested to hear what they mean to do about the quangos. When their hon. Friends from Wales and Scotland were in opposition, they supported Members from Northern Ireland on the subject of quangos which, as I think they will remember, were described as unrepresentative and undemocratic; they are certainly unelected.
The composition of the Northern Ireland quangos gives one a fair idea of how unrepresentative they are. I know that many people on those quangos do much good work, and that they mean well—but, sadly, the quangos are not democratic. They operate according to the will and pleasure of the Minister, but perhaps he will change some of that now. Perhaps we shall hear something about it later.
Another bone of contention for Northern Ireland Members—I am no exception—is planning. Through a constituent, I received an assurance from a planner that, if a certain large factory in my constituency sought planning permission, it would not be allowed to expand further. Wherever the pressure came from, it is my understanding that that factory has now been given temporary permission for an extension.
What happens when a Department takes enforcement action, as happened recently in my constituency? Enforcement action was taken against an unauthorised carrier, yet the commissioner told the planning service that, because the documents that had been filled in were wrong, he could take no action, and he dismissed the case.
There are other planning issues, too. A housing estate had outline planning permission showing a residents' path, which had been there a long time; yet that had mysteriously been forgotten by the planners, and planning permission over the route of the path was being given. It is a disputed path, but that is the area that could be used.
Unfortunately, there are two planning services in my constituency, one at each end—one in Belfast and one in Ballymena. The decisions taken by the different officers on the same type of application are different. There are supposed to be guidelines, yet different decisions are taken.
This morning, I had to make a quick investigation concerning a mobile telephone mast which was apparently about to be erected in the middle of a housing estate. When I inquired where the permission had come from, I was told that the mast was permitted development under a certain article of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
I tried to read that article, and it was very obscure—although perhaps that impression is my fault rather than that of the draftsman. None the less, nowhere in it could I find anything that would cover that aspect of planning. I am still investigating. I do not ask the Under-Secretary to respond on such detailed matters now, but I may be in touch with his colleague in another place at another stage.
I could, but I shall not, name dozens of small applications which, while all that I have described has been going on, have been vigorously pursued by the

Department—so much so that people have arrived on doorsteps very early in the morning to say that, unfortunately, they oppose this or that planning application. I like to think that the "new broom" will consider such matters carefully, and perhaps do something about them.
Perhaps, in passing, the Minister would tell me what legislation governs the opening of the road for gas and cable. I could probably speak for much longer, but I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends want to contribute. [Interruption.] I shall continue a little longer.
Last Friday, the House debated the Child Support Agency. For various reasons, I could not be here then, but I would like to refer to the agency now, in the context of Northern Ireland. The office in Belfast covers not only Northern Ireland but the rest of the United Kingdom, and I read with great interest the account of the debate. I thought that there were some questions that had not been answered; indeed, most of the questions were not even asked.
The agency is called the Child Support Agency, yet when we debate it we talk about finances and all sorts of other things. Has it made the children any better off? Decisions on maintenance were taken away from the courts because the courts apparently could not deal with them, and gave the wrong vibrations. People could get away with paying very little.
Are the relationships between former husbands and wives, or other couples, any better now than when maintenance was a matter for the court? Are absent parents, whether male or female, any better at paying? The whole House agreed on the CSA—there were no dissenters—yet now we seem to be concentrating on whether the Exchequer is saving money and whether people are being pursued.
Even with what seem to be black and white, cut and dried cases, the CSA does not seem able to operate the necessary sanctions. That is sad. The idea of a Child Support Agency was correct, yet we are failing to do what we were supposed to do—ensure that parents looked after their children, that fathers and mothers accepted their responsibilities. If that is not happening, that, rather than many of the other things that have been suggested, is what should be investigated.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a degree of frustration about what happens? Although the parent Act was passed by the House and deals with all of us, whether we are in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, when I have written to the Secretary of State for Social Security, sending a copy to the Northern Ireland Minister responsible, instead of the matter being dealt with in terms of legal reforms in the House, my letter has been sent back with the message that my question has been transferred to Northern Ireland. Surely the main Act was an Act of the House, affecting us all, and questions should be dealt with here.

Mr. Forsythe: I agree. Unfortunately, as I have found in many Standing Committees on which I have served, Northern Ireland is often not included in Bills. It is always explained to me in minute detail why that is, and that an order will be made at a later stage, but it would be much better if such matters were dealt with in the House by Ministers here. That is no reflection on the Ministers now in situ.
I cannot understand why a fixed amount is not set for each child, or why the Inland Revenue cannot be used to deal with self-employed absent parents. Some of my colleagues on the Select Committee on Social Security were of that opinion, although some are now slipping away from it. Changes must be made to the CSA so that it carries out its proper function. I congratulate the staff of the CSA on their work. They are carrying out our instructions, and my complaints are not about them, but about the legislation—I wish to make that clear.
On social security, I am aware that many applicants for disability living allowance are unhappy. I know that family doctors were in a difficult position when signing forms and making applications for DLA, and the new system was brought in to counter that. However, so many people have complained about the system that there must be some grain of truth in the allegations. There have been complaints about the attitude of those carrying out the medical examinations of not only new applicants but recalls. People have been crying after their examination, and many who have visited me are unhappy. That does not apply to everyone, of course—there are hundreds of cases of which I know nothing. However, if we have a number of complaints, they must be looked at.
The most surprising thing that I have discovered is that there have been complaints about the tribunals for those who have been turned down for DLA. People have complained to me about the attitude and conduct of some members of the tribunal, so much so that I have arranged to meet the president of the tribunals at a future date. It alarms me that people making appeals feel that they cannot put their case forward properly because of the attitude of those on the other side of the desk. This is not a matter for which the new Government have responsibility, but I wish to alert the Minister and the Under-Secretary to it. In addition, I have received many complaints about the jobseeker's allowance—which I need not go into—for various reasons.
The Under-Secretary may remember that I have previously raised the matter of charges at hospital car parks. I know why those charges were introduced: people were parking their car at certain hospitals, getting on the bus and coming back to pick up their car at night. But now the private finance initiative has been introduced at the Royal Victoria hospital, I understand that not only visitors but staff must pay for the car park. Does the Minister consider that to be a pay cut? Nurses are receiving the same salary, but now have to pay for car parking.
I wish to refer to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the annual complaint that is made about bad neighbours. I am sure that all hon. Members could tell me about bad neighbours, as we all have problems in our constituencies. What bothers me is that there seems to be no legislation on the matter. There have been suggestions and attempts to introduce legislation to deal with people who are not conducting themselves properly, and some whose behaviour is worse than that. In certain areas, drugs are dispensed in houses owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and we are unable to do anything about that.
I am not criticising the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but it is unfortunate that its officers simply give such bad neighbours a transfer. That is not the solution, as it only brings in other people who cause the same trouble and who will be transferred again later. Unfortunately,

people who were told that it was a good thing to buy their home, and received a reduction in price, are still suffering bad neighbour problems from Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive seems unable to do anything about it. I wish to raise that matter with the new team on the Government Front Bench.
I wish to refer to a Northern Ireland Housing Executive case involving two women. One owned her own home, and the other was a tenant of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The woman who owned her home lived in an upstairs apartment, while the other woman lived downstairs. There was a problem with the flue and, as a result, the woman upstairs had her living room destroyed by smoke. The story was that the people who previously lived in the downstairs flat knew not to use the flue, but the new tenant used it. I received a complaint that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's insurance company—rather than the Northern Ireland Housing Executive itself—decided on the damages to be paid. One can argue the case either way, but we know that insurance companies tend to try to cut their losses. If such a situation happens again, what will be the position of the person who is not to blame? I hope that the Under-Secretary will reply on that point—I will even take a letter from him.

Mr. William Thompson: I rise for the first time to deliver a speech in the House of Commons. This is a special occasion for me, as I am the first elected Member for the new constituency of West Tyrone or, as some on the mainland like to call it, Tyrone, West. Recently, I thought that any possibility of my being elected to this House—despite my involvement in politics for 30 years—was remote. However, when the boundary commission created an additional seat in Northern Ireland—and that seat took in the area in which I liive—that possibility became real.
Evidently West Tyrone was expected to be a nationalist seat, as the electorate are predominantly nationalist. There are two nationalists to every Protestant or Unionist. Due to the division between Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party, the full Unionist support in the constituency, and the addition of a number of Roman Catholic votes, I was elected with a majority of 1,161. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I fully support the first-past-the-post voting system.
I was delighted to be elected, but at the count three constituencies were counted together and a Mr. McGuinness—a prominent member of Sinn Fein—was elected for Mid-Ulster and got all the publicity. It was as if Sinn Fein had won the election—I was hardly mentioned. Is it not strange that we live in an age when our party, which won the election, hardly gets mentioned and a party that wins two seats gets all the publicity? That shows how much is gained by supporting terrorists and how much the media are determined to report their every word and action. That is a sad day for democracy in the United Kingdom.
I am proud to represent all the people of West Tyrone, irrespective of their religion or political affiliation. Having lived in the area all my life, I believe that the vast majority of them are decent, honest and hard working and I have a great affection for them.
The new constituency is made up of the district council areas of Omagh and Strabane. Sixty per cent. of the area was incorporated in the previous constituency of


Mid-Ulster, then represented by the Rev. William McCrea, while the rest—the Strabane area—was in the Foyle constituency and was represented by the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). I pay tribute to Rev. McCrea for his commitment and dedication to the constituency for the 13 years he represented the area and I wish him well in his future years. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle, who made every effort when he represented the northern part of my constituency to bring employment to the area—with considerable success. It will be difficult for me to emulate that success.
West Tyrone is largely a rural constituency of gentle rolling hills, glens, forests, loughs and rivers revered by fishermen. Omagh is the largest town in the constituency and the county town of Tyrone. Strabane is the next largest town. Farming is the predominant industry and has been badly affected by the beef crisis. A number of large to medium-sized industries exist in the area, giving substantial employment, but unemployment is still excessively high, with the May average figure showing 15 per cent. male unemployment and 5.7 per cent. female employment, as against the United Kingdom average of 7.7 per cent. and 3.1 per cent. respectively. The lower female figure is due to the fact that much of the main industry in the constituency is in the manufacture of textiles, which obviously gives higher female employment. More than one quarter of the unemployed have been out of work for more than five years, which is very worrying.
Inward investment is obviously needed in the constituency. It is, therefore, a high priority and I shall certainly do all I can, with the various employment and inward investment agencies, to bring more employment to the area.
The north-west of Northern Ireland has benefited greatly from the development of computer-based industries, particularly Seagate, which has just announced a big expansion programme. It is hoped that that expansion will have a knock-on effect in my constituency. Given the skills that are available, more inward investment of that sort would be very welcome indeed.
Tourism is another important industry in my constituency. Two of the major attractions are the Ulster-American folk park and the Ulster history park. The former traces the history of the mainly Protestant Scots-Irish emigration to America in the 18th century and the emigrants' unique contribution to the war of independence and the American constitution, boasting ancestral connections with at least 13 Presidents. The park also traces the later emigration of the Irish as a result of the Irish famine, with the settlements in New York, Boston and other American cities. The park contains unique collections of buildings, artefacts and archival materials of the period and has a fine library, which constitutes the only emigration museum of its kind in Ireland. It contains many records detailing the passenger lists of many of the ships that sailed for America and it is an invaluable source of information for students and historians alike.
Under the proposed Museums (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which will be coming up for debate in the House soon, the folk park is to be transferred from the existing trustees to a new board of trustees of the national

museums of Northern Ireland—yet another quango—where it will be merged with the Ulster museum and the Ulster folk and transport museum in the Greater Belfast area. Those two museums are in the east of the Province and it is to be hoped that the Ulster folk park will not be disadvantaged by its geographical location in the rural area of Tyrone, but will continue to receive adequate funds to expand and develop. We consider that that is important because we know that there are always pressures in Belfast and outside to get the most money. Sometimes, we in the west are regarded as far distant from the main city. We hope that we will get our fair share of the finances for our park to continue.
The Ulster history park traces the history of Ulster from the time of the first people to arrive through to the 17th century AD. Examples are to be seen of the simple huts, covered with animal skins or possibly tree bark, used by our early ancestors, the introduction of pottery, farming and events leading to the settled way of life. Examples of the different working tools and utensils through the ages are shown, with various tombs used to bury the dead and, no doubt, the various implements that the Irish have used to fight among themselves for the past many hundreds of years. The two parks complement each other, therefore, and attract a considerable number of visitors, and they contribute significantly to the local economy.
My constituency has had its fair share of terrorism in the past 20 years. Many good men, men of the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the police reserve have lost their lives through the bomb and the bullet. My area has suffered severely. The principal of the local school was murdered—blown up by an IRA bomb. A schoolmaster in the adjoining village was brutally murdered on his way home from school, and there were many others who chose to join the security forces and serve the community out of their loyalty.
Those people were especially vulnerable because of their part-time jobs. They made the supreme sacrifice, and I salute their memory. That makes us more determined never to give in to terrorism and to ensure that terrorism will not succeed in Northern Ireland. As an elected representative, I have attended the funerals and shared the grief of the loved ones, but I felt powerless to do anything about it.
We, the loyal citizens of Ulster, looked to successive British Governments to deal with terrorism and defeat it; we heard wonderful words, telling us that they would never give in to terrorism, but those words were not met with action. To buy off the terrorists, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to which we still say no, was imposed on us, giving a foreign power considerable influence in the affairs of our part of the United Kingdom; we resent that.
Again, the Downing street declaration was produced, and the framework document, with its plan to incorporate us gradually into an Irish republic, still hangs over our heads. All those concessions to terrorists have not placated but encouraged them: they believe that the British Government want to leave Northern Ireland and that keeping up the pressure will eventually persuade them to do so. I, along with many loyal people in Ulster, have felt let down and betrayed by successive British Governments.
Sinn Fein even wants to restrict our freedom to display our identity and culture by stopping our parades and church services. How can peace come to Ulster, as we all want? It can come only when the results of the ballot box are acknowledged, terrorism from whatever source is utterly defeated and democracy is again restored to our Province.
We are dealing in particular this afternoon with the finances of Northern Ireland. I was for a short time the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Assembly of 1982–84. I seek a clarification that the security budget is now separate from the main budget for Northern Ireland. The security budget used to be part of the Northern Ireland Office expenditure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat for a moment. I am extremely sorry to have to interrupt his maiden speech. I have allowed him considerable latitude, but he will have heard Madam Speaker say that police and security matters are expressly excluded from the compass of this debate. I have made every allowance for the fact that he has been making his maiden speech, but I really must ask him not to pursue security or police matters in the remainder of his remarks.

Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had no intention of discussing the police or security budget; I was discussing the relationship of that budget with the one that we are debating. That budget was previously kept separate from the Northern Ireland Office and was not cash-limited; we were told that when we had peace in Northern Ireland, part of it was transferred to the Department and we benefited in some way from it, but now, as there is no longer peace, that money has been taken away. We need clarification on that.
Another important issue in Northern Ireland is farming. The farmers have great need of help, especially because of the devaluation of the green pound. Can the Department produce more money to help the farmers? In the past, there was a system of virement, whereby Departments that did not spend all their money, particularly those dealing with inward investment, could transfer their savings to others so that the whole budget could be spent. Will that continue?

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) on a tremendously confident and, if I may say so, competent speech. I am always greatly impressed by the passion with which Northern Ireland Members speak and the love that they have for their constituencies and the Province that they represent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he is here by virtue of the creation of a new seat in Northern Ireland. I am familiar with such feelings, because mine is also a new seat, although in a different part of the country—Gloucestershire.
I hope that Northern Ireland Members will forgive me for intruding, as an English Member, on the debate. There is no reason why people should know this, but I made my maiden speech on the subject of Scottish devolution simply because, although I am not Scottish or from Northern Ireland, I have a great passion for the United Kingdom.
I congratulate Ministers and shadow Ministers on their appointments to the Front Benches. There are many other issues that concern Northern Ireland, but the defeat of the IRA and all violence in the Province must be the first priority. I recognise the need for regeneration and I should like to mention a few aspects that could help the process; they may be novel ideas, but they deserve a mention.
Some time ago, we witnessed the advent of mixed schools in Northern Ireland that children from all traditions could attend. What provision is there for the continuation and encouragement of that process? Local democracy was mentioned earlier; I urge caution on moving towards proportional representation, but I want more specifically to ask what plans are in hand for the strengthening of local democracy—giving more powers to local government—i;in Northern Ireland to give people elected to councils something worthwhile to do.
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I observed that there was a good set-up for local government but that the elected representatives had little responsibility. I do not mean to be unkind—I am sure that Northern Ireland Members know what I mean. I am aware that there is a difficulty, in that some of the councillors elected in Belfast, for instance, are members of Sinn Fein, but we must consider what can be done about the situation. More peace might come to the Province if local people are able to have more power and control over what happens there.
Has an expanded enterprise zone for Belfast been considered, with more inducements for inward investment and companies perhaps paying less tax as an encouragement for them to come there in the first place, as an attempt to regenerate the Province?
Finally, on the peace process, I urge that no time or finance be wasted on going down roads that have been shown to have failed in the past. We cannot expect much good will from the men of violence; we should not waste too much time seeking it.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I want to raise with the Minister the finance that is allocated to the various Departments in Northern Ireland. While no one disagrees with trying to achieve value for money, such is the stringency within Departments that the instructions that go down the line from, for example, the Department of Education to the education and library boards and to individual schools cause a great deal of waste and misdirected effort. I shall illustrate that by dealing with the provision of school meals in small rural primary schools.
In my constituency, where the community has suffered greatly over the years at the hands of terrorists, there have been extraneous pressures on society. It has been exceedingly difficult to maintain many of our small rural primary schools. There is a proposal to close 10 school kitchens in the part of the western board that is in my constituency and three in the part of the southern board that is in my constituency. One might imagine that that would release substantial resources to be ploughed into the classroom. In fact, the closure of those 13 kitchens will release about £28,000. The cost of social security benefits for the 13 cooks who will be made redundant will be about £30,000 or £32,000. In the schools budget, we save £28,000 but we lose more than that from the social security budget. That does not make sense. I will be told


that they are different budgets, but they are not. It all comes out of the same pot; it is all part of same cake. Someone must discover how we can save the cost, which has not been taken into account, of all the work done on the process that is called rationalisation of the school meals service in small schools but which actually loses money.
It is a question not only of money but of the future of small schools. Once their kitchens are removed, parents will become doubtful about whether the schools can continue to exist. They will ask whether it is the thin end of the wedge. They may decide that their children's future is no longer in the catchment area of the local school, so they will move closer to more viable schools. Perhaps the Government want that, but to me that is social engineering of the worst sort. We do not need such social engineering in Northern Ireland, above all places. Over the past 25 years or more, we have been trying to maintain stability in our society in Northern Ireland, but now we are tossing in a folly and calling it saving when it is the exact opposite of that. It is the destruction of the very thing that this Government, and the previous one, were publicly pledged to maintain.
The problem does not affect only the education system. I will not bore the Minister with similar examples in health and hospital services. I could give examples relating to the relocation of rates offices. Water and sewerage services were mentioned earlier. Through rationalisation, the people responsible for maintaining services are being taken further away from the areas where they work because someone thinks that it will save the electricity, light and heating costs of a small office that houses only six officers. No account seems to be taken of the extra travel involved or of the lack of contact with the people who are dependent on such services. I could go on, but there is a corollary to my point, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.
In Northern Ireland, the firm Mackie International has got into financial problems. I am not going to suggest how that happened, but I want to draw attention to the fact that the figures that were being published proved to be totally inaccurate. A large part of the industry concerned involved public funding several years ago. We must ask what has gone wrong, or whether anything has gone wrong that should not have, and whether anyone was culpable in respect of the way in which a business that had a large slice of public finance was handled.
I leave two thoughts with the Minister. First, will he exercise his authority over Departments in respect of so-called rationalisation to ensure that it is not the little fellow down at the bottom on whom the entire burden is placed? If he will not, the people being served will not get the service to which they are entitled. Secondly, will he examine firms into which large slices of public money have been poured to discover whether the money has been properly handled?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I had not planned to do so because, in preparing for the debate with the customary modesty of the Ulster Unionists, we were leaving space for others to participate. However, with the customary loyalty of the people of Northern Ireland who rely on the Ulster Unionists to look after their interests,

the other parties have left us to make sure that they are looked after. At business questions I asked about Northern Ireland questions, so it would be a shame if we left more than one hour of this debate, although it would be nice to let the Minister have that hour to answer all our questions. If we did so, however, he would miss the privilege of saying, "I do not have time; I shall write to hon. Members."
I want to raise some of the issues, and to thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for his tribute to our new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). We appreciate his contribution. We understand that maiden speeches should be non-controversial but, within the context of the economy, we must face the fact that, as the Minister said when he opened the debate, other factors have an impact on the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone spoke with passion about his experiences in west Tyrone. There is no need for the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to apologise for being a Yorkshire man. One of the best Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland happened to be a Yorkshire man—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Lancashire man."] I am sorry, I thought that he was from Yorkshire. We shall let the battle between the whites and the reds continue elsewhere. We appreciate hon. Members taking an interest in Northern Ireland, and the more who do so the better informed the House of Commons will be, so that people are not carried away by all the campaigns of the international terrorist movement and others.
I wish to take up the point made by hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury about the impact of the two budgets. Even the Minister said tonight that money had been taken from the security budget and put into the other budgets and that, if terrorism and unrest were to continue, that money would have to be clawed back. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has challenged those figures in the House in the past. We discovered that figures were being brandished—millions of pounds—but nobody could trace them. We want greater accountability when money is allegedly taken from our education or hospital budgets because it is supposed to go to the security budget. That was supposed to be a separate budget.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were right to say that the security budget did not form part of this debate; Madam Speaker and her predecessors did the same on successive occasions. However, immediately something goes wrong, the powers that be in the Northern Ireland Office say, "Be good boys or you will not get that money." That is the point that we are making. It is a genuine point, which must be made in the circumstances.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are strong suspicions in Northern Ireland that the cuts were directed more at securing the future of the United Kingdom in meeting European monetary union criteria than the circumstances that prevailed?

Rev. Martin Smyth: Many folk in Northern Ireland were of that opinion. It is not for me to speculate in this House, because many others have speculated and used the English language with an economy that left the rest of us wondering whether it was correct or not. I hope that that is parliamentary language.
The Minister referred to the decline in education standards in Northern Ireland. I cannot fully grasp that concept and I know that some of my colleagues have the


same problem. I may have misheard what was said. We were congratulated on the upper end of our education system and the fact that universities in Scotland, England and elsewhere are delighted to poach our best young people. Unfortunately, some teachers in Northern Ireland keep encouraging our best young people to go abroad, thereby denuding some of our universities of the quality of student that would challenge and encourage others to be the best. At the other end of the scale, we were congratulated on the fact that more people were leaving secondary education with awards and diplomas than ever before.
A problem remains, however. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred to those who are deprived. Unfortunately, in some areas of Northern Ireland there has been a tradition whereby parents send their children out early to work, either to get a dead-end job with no future or to augment the family's income through social security payments. That robs some of our young people of the ability to develop. I come from such an area and feel that we should do more to provide good jobs and encourage young people to prepare for them.
However, if we constantly deride what has been happening in Northern Ireland, that will not happen. Tonight's Belfast Telegraph—Thursday night is job night—contains hundreds of jobs that are open to people on condition that they have the required qualifications. There is a tendency to think that the education budget is not going in the right direction to encourage some young people to improve their qualifications so that they can take the jobs that are required for this modern age.
If we were to separate the Mersey area from other parts of the United Kingdom with populations of 1.5 million and compare it with the overall "English region", as it is called, we would discover that Northern Ireland is not as deprived as we are often told. At the same time, we are not the beggars we are often accused of being. I do not for a moment deny the fact that we have benefited from being part of the United Kingdom, but so have other areas. I am sure that, like Northern Ireland, those areas would be delighted to have the Government subventions that have gone into south-east England, in defence contracts and research establishments, rather than into social security payments.
I therefore make no apology in this appropriation debate for asking the Minister whether a proper study has been conducted of the sums coming out of Northern Ireland into insurance firms and finance houses in England through some of the stores and firms that have discovered that Northern Ireland gives them the best return on capital. How is taxation being considered, or are we still working on an imaginary figure rather than dealing with reality?
I welcome the money that has been set aside. I encourage Ministers, who have taken up their posts with tremendous enthusiasm, to heed one warning: they should shake themselves loose from their civil servant minders and sometimes go out and meet real people rather than keep themselves so busy that they cannot even study their brief properly.

Mr. David Trimble: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I shall take advantage of the absence of the other

Northern Ireland parties to speak on my own behalf, so that, when Labour Members rush into the Chamber at 6 o'clock, they will not be disappointed to discover that the business is over.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) on his maiden speech. His election gave pleasure not only to our own party, but to many people in Northern Ireland when they saw that a pro-Union party had gained that seat. Like my hon. Friend, we all resented the way in which the media devoted excessive attention to the games of a very small party in Northern Ireland, and ignored the fact that the largest party had managed not merely to retain its position as the largest party, but had increased its lead over other parties.
My hon. Friend mentioned the museums in west Tyrone—the Ulster-American folk park and the Ulster history park—and the Museums (Northern Ireland) Order that will shortly be forthcoming. He referred to the possibility of the order being debated in the House, but unfortunately, because of the Jopling reforms, Northern Ireland legislation scarcely features in the House at all. That is one of the factors that incline me against the Jopling reforms, which I do not think have benefited the House. They have taken far too many debates off the Floor of the House. The bulk of the primary legislation made for Northern Ireland—I repeat, primary legislation—is never debated on the Floor of the House. It is debated in Committees, where one, or at most two, Northern Ireland Members are present.
That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Modernisation Committee should take that on board. I am sorry to say that, as is traditional in the House, the Committee was set up with no attempt to provide representation for the part of the United Kingdom that we represent. That reflects the habit of hon. Members on the two Front Benches of ignoring the interests of Northern Ireland, except on rare occasions, of which this debate is one. I hope that the Committee will introduce procedures that will allow Northern Ireland business to be conducted properly.
I welcome the contributions of the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). Unlike representatives from Scotland and Wales, we do not resent the presence of other hon. Members at Northern Ireland business. Indeed, we welcome their interest and the contribution that they have made to the debate.
If we managed to get the Northern Ireland Grand Committee up and running, as I hope we will before too long, the paradox is that there would be more hon. Members at the sittings of the Committee than are present for this debate. One of the features of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is that, in order to maintain the Government's majority, there are about 25 added members. Those members do attend, so we have a larger audience of English, Scots and Welsh Members at the Northern Ireland Grand Committee than when we debate on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde discussed the new ferry which we hope will be operational next month between Ballycastle and Campbeltown. Like the hon. Gentleman, I express the hope that that will develop tourist opportunities and lead to an increase in


tourist movement between Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland. However, considerable effort will have to be made if the ferry is to be a success.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish Office was reluctant to authorise the use of the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry that was available, because there were serious reservations about the economic viability of the service. There must be such reservations.
The north coast of Antrim, or rather the north coast of Northern Ireland—if my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) were here, he would immediately chide me for that slip—is an area of considerable attraction to tourists, from the glens right through to Foyle. A significant number of tourists visit the area. One can easily see how coming over to Ballycastle and moving along the attractions of the north coast will appeal to them, but of course there are not many people in Kintyre to come over, and it is not likely that people will travel through Kintyre to Campbeltown to travel over.
If there is to be significant movement, it will be largely in the other direction. The problem with that is that Campbeltown will need considerable investment to be attractive to visitors. Consideration will have to be given also to the transport links north from Campbeltown through Kintyre.
There is a matter that I should mention. I did not think that I needed to declare it, as I derive no financial benefit from it, although I derive social benefits. My sister-in-law runs a guest house in Machrihanish, on the other side of Kintyre from Campbeltown. Consequently, I am familiar with the long journey from Stranraer to Campbeltown, and I will take advantage of the new ferry. Being familiar with the roads through Kintyre and the condition of the town of Campbeltown, I am aware of the need for considerable investment on that side if the venture is to be successful.

Dr. Godman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the assessment of the economic viability of the service should not be confined to two or three years, but would need to be carried out over a period of at least five or six years, to allow it to develop.

Mr. Trimble: I agree entirely. In order for the service to be attractive, there will have to be investment in Kintyre and Campbeltown, which will take time. There will also have to be promotion of the tourist opportunities. I hope that the Northern Ireland tourist board and the Scottish tourist bodies are co-operating on the project. Can the Minister tell us whether any active co-operation is taking place?
We hear a great deal in political terms about the advisability of cross-frontier co-operation on the north-south axis. A considerable amount of such co-operation takes place with respect to matters where there is any pragmatic value to be obtained from it. We do not hear enough about the need for more co-operation and joint ventures on an east-west basis. The project that I have described is a clear example where there ought to be such co-operation. So far it has not been forthcoming. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde may know better than I do, but I do not think that any significant assistance was given by the Northern Ireland Office to get the new ferry into operation. I hope there will be such assistance to develop it.
We have similar problems with the development of the Northern Ireland economy. Because Northern Ireland is a peripheral region of the United Kingdom, one of our biggest problems is transport links. We need the best possible transport links for goods and people. The greatest problems arise in Scotland, not in Northern Ireland. There has been investment in the ports of Stranraer and Belfast, so that, particularly in Larne, we have a state-of-the-art ro-ro facility, and Belfast is developing as well.
However, if one moves from Larne and Belfast, with their first-class ports, across to Scotland, to Cairnryan and Stranraer, one sees nothing like the same facilities or investment. The road connections through to Carlisle are not as good as they could be, and the rail connections are virtually non-existent. For years Ulster Unionist Members have been pressing for more investment in the west of Scotland, along the transport routes, but Scottish Office Ministers have not responded. Even when the former Secretary of State for Scotland represented the constituency concerned, we did not see any action. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why he is no longer in this place.
Reference was made at the outset to overall expenditure and spending plans. I have several general questions regarding the Government's review of expenditure and the extent to which they are committed to existing expenditure programmes. I understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to impose some expenditure restraint on his party by making a commitment to retain the previous Government's expenditure programmes. However, I am surprised that he went one step further and locked in detailed departmental figures—particularly for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I assumed that the Labour party, which represents virtually all Welsh seats and most of those in Scotland, would be keenly aware of the fact that the previous Government deliberately cut expenditure in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in their last Budget in order to allocate more funds to England. They did so for purely political reasons. There were expenditure increases for certain favoured programmes, such as education, in England and Wales, but that did not occur in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I remember former Ministers claiming that £30 million extra would be devoted to the Northern Ireland education programme. However, as the Minister said in opening tonight's debate, we have seen a reduction in education expenditure in Northern Ireland. Expenditure levels were also held down in Scotland and Wales for political reasons, and the Barnett formula was not fully applied. Given the Labour party's pattern of representation, I assumed that it would want to right the injustices done to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand the Chancellor's desire to restrain expenditure overall, but I thought that he would make some adjustments.
Hon. Members will know that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not specially favoured in public expenditure terms. The comparisons made in terms of expenditure per capita are misleading. The particular circumstances of the regions necessitate higher spending levels. Expenditure is related to need and to the objective of providing a common standard of service. Regions with high unemployment, more health problems and a less well-off population require greater expenditure. Service delivery costs more when the population is dispersed over a wider area. It is not as though the level of service offered


to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is significantly better than that offered to the people of England—in fact, as a result of the last Government's spending plans, the level of provision is decreasing.
I had hoped tonight to hear some details about the Government's expenditure plans. I hope that the expenditure review will be flexible and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone said, there will be some virement within the Northern Ireland budget. It would be foolish to apply the Chancellor's rule about maintaining existing departmental budgets to the six Northern Ireland Departments. If the Northern Ireland budget has to be capped, there should be an opportunity for virement.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is completely correct: there is scope for virement within the Northern Ireland budget and within the budgets of the Northern Ireland Departments. However, there is no such scope between Whitehall Departments.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for that encouraging clarification. I am sorry that he went on to reinforce the bad news, but at least we know that it will be possible to move funds between the Northern Ireland Departments.
I turn now to two specific matters. The first concerns the question of education, and I return to the comments of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. He mentioned the amount of money that is allocated to targeting social need. That is a worthwhile objective, which may involve programmes that address social need and that seek to improve the position of those who are less well off. However, I question the purpose of including a line of expenditure that targets social need in the education budget. The education budget should be used for educational purposes: to educate people and raise standards in schools.
The correlation between social need and educational achievement is not certain. There is a degree of correlation, but it is not precise. There is a high level of educational attainment in some areas of great social need. That is an important point. Even if there were a correlation between social need and educational attainment, the money that is devoted to schools under TSN is not used for educational purposes. It is treated merely as a general addition to the budget and is not directed towards individual families who are in need.
The large sums distributed to some schools under TSN become part of the general budget. That money is not tied to educational need and no check is made of how it is spent. The school governors simply have more money at their disposal, which they may spend as they see fit. No one asks any questions. That is a very inefficient procedure. The criterion used to allocate TSN funding is the entitlement to free school meals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South said, that is a very uncertain criterion to apply, as many of those in need do not qualify for free school meals and are left out of the equation. Unfairness in that regard leads to further unfairness when the TSN programme is applied to schools.
About 7 per cent. of the education budget is distributed by referring to free school meals. That is an increase on the figure that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde cited, which was accurate for the year to which he referred. That, and expenditure on other programmes,

top-slices the general educational budget in Northern Ireland quite significantly and depresses the amount of money available to individual schools. Expenditure is often very tight at schools whose pupils are not entitled to free school meals. We face a crisis—that is not too strong a word—in education funding in Northern Ireland because many schools do not receive sufficient money through TSN and related programmes.
I have a friend who is a schoolteacher at a very successful primary school in my constituency. Student numbers at the school last year increased by 30 to about 400, but he has been told that he must make two teachers redundant because of budgetary pressures. Perhaps those posts will be saved by the £4 million that the Minister said will be available for education. That first-aid money might rescue some of the hundreds of teaching posts that were due to be lost in Northern Ireland. It might rescue them for one year only, but it certainly will not solve the long-term problem, which is related to the overall education budget.
The problem affects some schools more than others. I could refer the Minister to the detailed expenditure of schools which have similar geographical locations and student numbers and serve the same sorts of populations, but which face considerable budgetary differences because the criteria are applied unfairly. There is unfairness for individual schools and for categories of school. There is discrimination in favour of the maintained sector and against the controlled sector.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Very much so.

Mr. Trimble: Indeed.
There is severe discrimination against the controlled sector, and it is that sector that is in crisis. If something drastic is not done to tackle the issue within the next year or two, large parts of the controlled sector will be in a state of collapse. Unfortunately, there are many in Northern Ireland who regard this skew in the expenditure budget as related to the people who run the Department.
I do not, of course, refer to Labour Ministers, who are Ministers only by courtesy in terms of title rather than substance, because they are not heads of the Departments of which they are said to be Ministers. We know who is to blame, and Ministers may take some comfort from that. There is a serious problem, however, and it must be addressed.
I suggest that there are solutions. There may be a need in some instances to put additional funds into certain schools to improve educational attainment. Indeed, there is a raising school standards initiative, but the criteria under which it operates are open to question. There is clearly a need to raise attainment in some schools.
Information is available to enable that to be done on purely education grounds. That information comes from the tests that are set in schools at key stages 4, 7 and so on. From the results of these tests, we have purely educational information that shows levels of attainment. We should be switching the criteria on which moneys are distributed away from free school meals, which is not an especially good criterion, towards attainment in schools.
Results come in at key stage 4 and then on upwards that reflect personal progress through school. The tests would be a better guide if we had a test or assessment at


entry level, and that is coming, albeit rather slowly. It is being piloted this year in England and Wales, and it is expected that the scheme will be developed generally.
When that process has taken place, we shall have entry-level assessment, and, subsequently through a child's career at school, points at which education attainment can be assessed. We shall then be able to fine-tune the funds that go to schools to enable them to raise standards and improve levels of attainment. At the same time, something should be done to ensure that additional moneys are well spent.
I move on to the closure of health facilities, and especially homes. The Minister knows that my constituents and I are seeking meetings with him to discuss these closures. This evening, however, I shall give him a foretaste of some of the points that will be made later, as and when we have the opportunity to speak to him.
I had hoped that the change of Government might result in a change of policy towards the closure of residential and other homes, but there appears so far to be no change. Perhaps a policy change is waiting on the conclusion of the review on financial matters, but the sooner the change comes, the better. There have been far too many closures.
The Minister will know that the Craigavon and Banbridge social services trust has recently taken a decision to close the Edenderry home in Portadown, and to give a six-month stay of execution to the Hoop Hill home in Lurgan.
The Hoop Hill home is for the mentally infirm, and is the only such home in the entire southern region. It will be closed in six months if the Minister does not intervene or if additional funds are not made available. If the closure takes place, there will be no statutory provision for the mentally infirm in the southern region. That is not satisfactory. Leaving aside the individual circumstances of the home, it is surely unsatisfactory to have no provision in the statutory sector.
It has been tried over recent years to introduce partnership between the private and statutory sectors, and one understands and supports that. That should not mean, however, that there is no statutory provision. As I have said, I leave aside the circumstances of the individual home, which is an extremely good one, custom-built with extremely good and caring staff. I leave aside also the inevitable distress that will be caused to residents as and when they are moved. I stress the wisdom of maintaining some provision in the statutory sector.
The Edenderry home is slightly different, in that it is residential and not for the mentally infirm. That being so, there is some alternative provision. As a result of the changes that have taken place in the Craigavon area, however, it is now the last statutory home in Craigavon. A succession of such homes have been closed. I remember being involved in fighting the closure of the Moylinn home in the Brownlow district of Craigavon a couple of years ago. As I have said, Edenderry is the last remaining home, but it is due to be closed.
Craigavon is a substantial area, and is now, I think, the second largest district in Northern Ireland in population terms. It will not be too long before the population reaches 100,000. There will be no statutory provision, however, for residential homes. The working party that

recommended closure referred to the many homes that are available in the private sector. It claimed that there were more homes available in that sector in the Craigavon district than in other areas which it examined. That was a dubious statement, because I doubt whether it was true in proportionate terms. The provision proportionately in Craigavon is not, I think, as good as in the areas where comparisons were made.
Other factors bear on the closure of the Edenderry home. Policy was set by the Department and its board, which meant that the trust was forced into an exercise in which it had to choose one of three homes to close. It had to make comparisons between them. A paper was produced supposedly bearing witness to the comparisons made. The paper is largely unintelligible and irrational. I use my terms carefully and deliberately.
The paper claims to make a comparison of three homes on the basis of certain criteria. It claims also to award scores to the three homes on each of the points in the criteria. There are detailed tables with numbers against various points. The numbers are totted up, and it is found that there are certain scores. There is a variation of about 30 points out of 750 between the three homes. It was decided that the home with the fewest points should be closed.
It is an irrational exercise as presented. At no point is any explanation offered of why any one of the three homes was given any particular score on any of the criteria. We are left with a series of tables in which figures have been inserted. For all we know, those who conducted the exercise merely stared at the ceiling, thought of a number and wrote it down. Alternatively, they closed their eyes, thought of a number and put it down. No reason is given anywhere to show how a score was arrived at.
The Minister will hear at length from my constituents and me that we are amused at the scores given on ease of implementation, which is ease of closure. The report tells us that the Edenderry home will be the easiest to close, but, uniquely of the three, the Edenderry home is the subject of a charitable trust and cannot be closed without an application to the courts, which would take time and cost money. Those factors appear not to have been taken into account. We may find that that issue is ventilated in another place at a later stage.
Even if the Minister feels that he is precluded from examining the merits of the two homes that I have mentioned, I hope that he will consider the general policy, and not simply carry on with the policies adopted by the previous Administration; otherwise, the current jibes will be deemed to be accurate. The most significant recent jibe is that the Labour party won the election because it positioned itself to the right of the Conservative party.
I should like the Minister to examine the policy seriously. We want a change in policy, so that the health service in Northern Ireland does not continue to deteriorate. We also want changes in education policy.
During the general election, the issue that was most often mentioned to my colleagues and me on the doorsteps was education, and the problems that are occurring owing to the underfunding of schools. I hope that the Minister will deal with those problems urgently and energetically.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I concur with the remarks of the leader of my party, and having had the opportunity to spend a good hour with the Minister


responsible for education in Northern Ireland, I shall not repeat them. However, last evening, I did not take the opportunity to pursue the matter of the genuine need for additional funding for universities in Northern Ireland. Far too many of our young people are forced to obtain university places in Great Britain. That would not be so bad if they were to return immediately after obtaining qualifications. That problem affects both communities. Those young people generally form life partnerships during their university years, and we do not get the benefit of their expertise and qualifications for many years.
It is a sad state of affairs that so many of our youngsters have entry qualifications that would easily find them places in universities in Great Britain, but because of the shortage of university places in Northern Ireland, only those with the highest qualifications are accepted. Although we welcome and encourage students from outside Northern Ireland, every student from outside Ulster who obtains a place at a university in Northern Ireland displaces one of our own students. Will the Minister please take that matter seriously and consider the cost to parents? He should also consider the problem of poorer families who cannot afford to support their children at universities away from home on the mainland.
During the period of phoney peace in Northern Ireland, which we all enjoyed while it lasted, Northern Ireland hotels and guest houses were overwhelmed with visitors, and the shortage of bed spaces became evident. That problem has been addressed to some extent by investment encouraged and supported by the Northern Ireland tourist board. That investment has produced a number of new hotels and extensions to existing hotels.
I appeal to those responsible to consider the plight of smaller family hotels, which have struggled through the 30 lean years of trouble, and have just managed to break even. They need investment and grant aid to encourage further investment. It would be of great assistance to smaller hoteliers if a scheme were introduced to provide funding and encouragement.
I want to bring to the Minister's attention a problem in my constituency. For many years, Ministers in previous Administrations went to the trouble of visiting the Gobbins path in Islandmagee, which is a unique feature. It was once one of the biggest tourist attractions in Northern Ireland, but sadly, because of lack of maintenance, the bridges to significant views and sites collapsed into the sea.
It would cost too much for a small local council such as Larne borough council to use even its share of millennium funding to reinstate that visitor attraction. It is not a white elephant: the millennium fund has accepted that it is a worthwhile project that would add to the existing attractions of the giants' causeway, the mountains of Mourne and the green glens of Antrim. Because it is such a major project, and because it needs such investment, the burden on a small district council would be too much. I ask those newly appointed to the Northern Ireland Office to examine how support can be given to councils that make investments that are beneficial Provincewide.
To help the Minister obtain some of the moneys required for such investment, I bring to his attention the serious problem of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that are lost annually in Northern Ireland because some in the road haulage industry use diesel fuel on which duty is not paid—red diesel. Presumably, there are insufficient staff in Customs and Excise to deal with that problem.
I am sure that the Exchequer is being defrauded of hundreds of thousands of pounds because that matter is not being pursued.
Some units are being constructed with disguised fuel tanks that are capable of taking up to 200 gallons at a time, which can be drawn into the engine for consumption by the flick of a switch in the cab. The taxpayer loses out and, even worse, legitimate businesses that pay their drivers well, keep their vehicles roadworthy and incur the massive taxation cost of being on the road are put at risk because of the illegal use of fuel throughout Northern Ireland. It is used for journeys to and from both the Irish Republic and Great Britain. I ask that that matter be given urgent attention, so that the taxpayer can benefit and legitimate companies can have fair competition.
I had not intended to speak at all this evening. Although ours is the largest party from Northern Ireland in the House, usually only two of our representatives get to speak in such a debate. On a good night three of us get in, but on a special evening such as this—when the Ulster Unionist party, as it always has done, has again represented the interests of the people of Northern Ireland—more than three of us have had the chance to speak.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I shall do my best to answer as many points as I can. My first pleasure is to welcome the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) to his new position. I hope that he will enjoy his responsibilities for Northern Ireland as much as we all enjoy ours. I believe that he comes from the Euro-sane wing of the Conservative party; I wonder whether he has been stationed in Northern Ireland for that reason—but then I also see, sitting beside him on the Front Bench, someone from the other wing of the Tory party: the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran).
I am sure that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton will link up well with our newly appointed Northern Ireland Minister responsible for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy).
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the powers that a local Assembly would have—perhaps the simplest point with which I shall have to deal all evening. That is for the parties in Northern Ireland to sit down and discuss—soon, we hope.
I was astonished to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the private finance initiative. He gave the impression that it was a smoothly purring machine that had been heavily funding large numbers of projects until the incoming Labour Government interrupted it. What nonsense. Here was a project hailed as the saviour of the Conservative party's public expenditure plans five years ago which has, in the event, disgorged virtually nothing. Indeed, we have had to rescue the PFI and cut out some of the bureaucratic, time-consuming procedures involved in the bidding process—a process that was threatening to become more expensive than the projects themselves.
We intend to be more imaginative and to find out whether the PFI or public-private partnerships can actually deliver. We shall energetically set about giving the scheme a chance to work.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton, along with several others, discussed transfers between Departments. They have always occurred, they do occur and they will continue to occur. The most immediate example that springs to mind was when we transferred money from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which was generating more capital receipts than anticipated by the previous Government, to the education budget. The Secretary of State has the power to move items from one heading to another. We are at present involved in a root-and-branch analysis of the expenditure by the former Government, to determine how it can better reflect Labour party priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), like other hon. Members, mentioned the new passenger service between Ballycastle and Campbeltown. We hope that it will succeed. It will need marketing co-operation on the Scottish and Northern Irish sides; it has received European funding. We certainly hope that it generates the passenger volumes that will be necessary.
My hon. Friend contributed to the report on under-achievement in schools, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). We shall respond to that report in a Command Paper, which we hope will appear before the summer recess. It was a valuable report, which will inform the general review that we are undertaking.
Several hon. Members asked about steering money towards remedying educational under-achievement. That involves much more than top-slicing 5 per cent. for the targeting of social need. On arriving in government, we found seven separate funding formulae for schools in a region with a population of 1.6 million people. That raises questions about the effectiveness of school funding. We have recently received a Coopers and Lybrand report on that very issue, and we shall take it into account when looking at ways of targeting educational and social need.
We shall also review the progress of the raising school standards initiative, now in its second year and with one more year to go. We can learn from it. We fought the election on the idea that there can be no higher priority than raising school standards. Above all, that means improving the chances of low achievers in schools.
There is no question but that the Northern Ireland system is highly effective at getting youngsters into university—as many as in Scotland and more than in England and Wales. But the system also continues to turn out under-achievers. The prospects for them and their families are, of course, dispiriting. Instead of being able to contribute to community life, some people's lives are blighted by the under-achievement that stems from a lack of qualifications. We are reviewing that, too, with the aim of changing it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations' contribution to the life of Northern Ireland. It was a pleasure yesterday to attend the reception held here for UK organisations involved in after-school play activities. We are pleased that the £3.5 million from the European Union will begin to yield benefits in the autumn, when the first of 100 after-school clubs will begin to be funded. I hope that Playboard and other organisations will look

into the possibility of funds from the midweek lottery going to after-school activities. I, for one, would welcome that.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) raised a great many points, but I cannot respond to the ones involving unnamed planning applications in unnamed places—

Mr. Forsythe: The Minister will understand that I was making general points, not specific ones. This is not the place for specific details.

Mr. Worthington: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he could put more substance into those points, I should be delighted to respond to them and to examine the procedures.
The hon. Gentleman raised the assertion that the Department of the Environment is both a polluter and pollution controller. As he will know, on 1 April 1996, the previous Government established the Environment and Heritage Service as a next steps agency, following a full assessment of the options for the delivery of environmental functions and heritage protection. It is important for us to watch the development of the agency and to see how it operates. If, at the end of that time, the position is inadequate, we must address it, but as the organisation has existed for a year, it would be a bit precipitate to change it.
The hon. Gentleman and I know that Northern Ireland's road safety record is unfortunate. He referred to our Committee sittings on that. Eventually, last year, important legislation was put through to penalise, for example, bad drivers, which, we hope, will yield resources. Recently, more money has gone into measures such as traffic calming, which should improve road safety.
On quangos, again, one returns to the fact that the quango state of Northern Ireland could be dealt with most effectively if the talks were to succeed. When there is an elected Assembly within Northern Ireland, the necessity for excessive quangoisation will disappear. I hope that that will come along. At present, we have to deal with each quango on a one-by-one basis. In some areas, we shall certainly examine the role of appointed rather than elected bodies, and come to conclusions on a one-by-one merit basis.

Mr. Forsythe: Before the Minister leaves the issue of the Department of the Environment and roads, may I remind him that road safety officer numbers have been reduced or maintained at the former level?

Mr. Worthington: We shall have to wait and see what happens over the next year. No decisions have been taken at present. We are working on the previous Government's budgets. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has written—and I think that the degree of consultation that we have embarked on is unprecedented—to each of the parties, asking for suggestions to increase the budget next year. It will be interesting to receive their proposals for cutting expenditure that is being wasted. We look forward to receiving from all the parties a lengthy list of proposals. We wait in hope, but I suspect that they will be outnumbered by proposals for increased expenditure.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One of our difficulties is that we cannot compare the figures. Would it be possible for the


Minister to tell us the cost of the consultation during the two or three years that were spent planning traffic calming in the Holy Land and the cost of the ultimate outcome? That issue has been raised with me by people who object to the scheme. On the other hand, less expensive calming measures have been denied in other regions that have wanted them. If we had some of those figures, we might be able to give the Minister some guidance.

Mr. Worthington: It will not astonish the hon. Gentleman to know that he cannot have those figures right at this moment. I do not know whether I heard him right, but I thought that he referred to traffic calming measures in the Holy Land. I do not actually have those to hand at present.
The Child Support Agency was introduced with all-party support. I have already established good contact with the CSA in Belfast, which, in addition to serving Northern Ireland, serves a considerable amount of eastern England. My impression is that the work of the CSA in Northern Ireland is towards the top of the CSA's UK performance chart. The annual report will come out shortly, and I can only encourage the hon. Member for South Antrim to get in touch with the director of the CSA in Northern Ireland and put his points to him. However, I have been impressed with its work so far and we have just set new targets for it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) on his maiden speech. We remember vividly his predecessor, Rev. William McCrea, who, I suppose, was unique among hon. Members—he was probably the only Member who could fill Waterfront hall three nights running. That was not because of his political skills, but because of his gospel singing skills. I do not know whether he is going to intensify his efforts in that field, but he was a memorable Member.
I was at the Ulster-American folk park last week, so I found out at first hand the contribution that it makes. I heard the concerns of the director and others about the merger. It is so well advanced that we now have to implement it. There is no alternative. We are promised gains from the merger, but I did hear, as one always does when one goes to the west of the Province, people's fears that they will be forgotten about. Sometimes those fears may be excessive, but it has registered with me.
I apologise if I miss any points out. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made a point about integrated schools. The number of integrated schools has expanded in recent years, but they still cater for only 2 per cent. of children. The previous Government and ourselves support the idea of integrated schools, where parents want them, where parents can demonstrate clearly that there is a demand for such schools and where that demand is robust and can be afforded, alongside the presence of other schools, which is important. There is, as elsewhere, a surplus of school places, so we shall consider the proposals sympathetically.
We hope that the talks will deliver in relation to local government, with the people of Northern Ireland deciding on such powers, but recently there have been some steps forward. Some local authorities have made considerable contributions through their involvement in district partnerships, using European money. Some of them are seizing on their newish economic development powers, to increase their role in society, and of course we welcome that.
The hon. Member for—is it still Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Mr. Maginnis: I reassure the Minister that I am still the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and that he will be welcome when he eventually finds his way to Dungannon or Enniskillen, where we have missed his presence so far.

Mr. Worthington: Now that the hon. Gentleman has returned home, it would be time for me to start visiting him. Recently, I have found it difficult to contact him at times and I should welcome the chance to go to Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I welcome his budget suggestions. Of course, we always have to be aware of the knock-on effects of any rationalisation, but we have to insist that things are run efficiently. If services are run inefficiently, it takes away from services elsewhere. There is no doubt that sometimes what appear to be economies are only false economies, and we have to bear that in mind.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mackie's. It would not be proper for me to comment on the affairs of a particular company, but we are aware of the situation and shall give what support we can. The IDB is in close contact with the company, and I am sure that the relevant Minister—the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who is sitting beside me—will be willing to talk to the hon. Gentleman about that.
I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) misheard the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, who did not refer to any decline in standards in Northern Ireland's schools. As is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom, it is absolutely crucial that we do not become satisfied with the standards in Northern Ireland. As we said many times during the election, standards have to be raised to match the best in Europe, although standards in Northern Ireland are relatively high already.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) mentioned university places. We recognise that the shortage of places in Northern Ireland is a serious problem. As he will know, we are awaiting the Dearing report, which we anticipate will appear next month. It should give us clues as to the ways ahead. We accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the consequences for Northern Ireland of a shortage of places. We accept that the problem has to be dealt with in the medium and long term, but we need to take guidance from the report.
I see that the hon. Member for Upper Bann has returned to his seat. I dealt with the issue of targeting education and social need in his absence, and it would be unfair to go over the point again. The Government have been active on the social and economic front since we took office, because we recognise how important it is that economic and social policy should help our political policy.
Unemployment, poverty, inequality and unfairness are fertile ground for social and political unrest, so we have to use education and training to provide opportunities for all. Indeed, we have already taken action on, for example, schools, where the situation that we inherited was unacceptable. Teachers were being made inappropriately redundant and class sizes were rising. Not to act would have set back our long-term objective of lower class sizes.


Our action was greatly welcomed. Instead of the increase in the schools budget being below the rate of inflation, it is now slightly above.
We have also acted to end the indecision in the further education colleges. For years, the previous Government had intended to create self-governing colleges, but had failed to progress the necessary legislation, and the colleges were left in limbo. They will now become self-governing on 1 April next year. Unlike what happened under the previous Government, colleges will now go forward in the spirit of co-operation with other colleges, schools and universities rather than in selfish competition.
We believe that further education and training are best provided on a Northern Ireland basis, but they need a strategic framework for development.

Mr. Roy Beggs: There are great prospects for creating employment in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. If we have permanent peace, the demand that we previously experienced will be surpassed. Will the Minister consider the need to secure funding for the Northern Ireland tourist and hospitality training council, to ensure that the proper training is afforded our young people so that those engaged in the industry can meet the standards that visitors have come to expect?

Mr. Worthington: That matter is on my desk at the moment, but we need effective training councils. We cannot simply support bodies that have the right name, but which might not be delivering. We need to know what is wanted in Northern Ireland as a whole, rather than simply hoping that the colleges will provide the skills needed for the tourist industry.
We took a major step forward when we decided that the same Minister would be responsible for education and training. There had been an unnecessary divide. We are also reviewing the provision of post-16 education and training, to make sure that all our education and training needs are being met in the most effective way.
One of the most important matters on which we have taken action and about which more details will emerge next week is the ambitious welfare-to-work programme, which will particularly benefit Northern Ireland, with its high rates of youth and adult unemployment. I have already referred to the action that we have taken to free up the private finance initiative. It will take a long time to remedy the decades of under-investment in the infrastructure, schools and hospitals of Northern Ireland, but we must rapidly find out what the PFI can deliver.
We are already proceeding with proposals to create a food standards agency under the control of Health Ministers. We have gone ahead with proposals for a major development at Altnagelvin hospital. I did in fact get very close to Fermanagh the other day, when I was pleased to open more renal dialysis beds in Tyrone. We finally confirmed the new Causeway hospital.
It will take us some time to tackle the root causes of some of the problems of over-administration in the health service, to deal with the two-tierism of fundholding, to end the internal market and to create an administration system that is lean and effective and which ensures that the maximum resources go to patient care. I have not met

one Northern Ireland Member who believes that the present structure of administration in the health service in Northern Ireland is lean and effective.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said at the outset, the Government are dedicated to ensuring that these appropriations are used with the maximum effectiveness. The greatest help that we can be given is for the resources earmarked for security purposes to be made available for positive things such as health and education. As my hon. Friend said, we are currently involved in the most comprehensive ever spending review across the Northern Ireland block, and hon. Members can be assured that our aim is to ensure that every penny spent reflects the priorities that we so clearly outlined when we fought the election. We have asked the parties in Northern Ireland to help us in that.
Every hon. Member who has spoken today recognises Northern Ireland's enormous potential. Tourism simply shot up in the year of the ceasefire, and manufacturing growth has over the years outstripped that in the rest of Great Britain, but what is crucial to the success of Northern Ireland is the confidence that comes with effective talks and a new ceasefire.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11 th June, be approved.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I could leave with you an important point of order that I want to raise tonight, which perhaps could be discussed with Madam Speaker over the next few days.
Oral questions for the Chancellor of the Exchequer were being tabled today. I sought to table a question to ask
what measures he proposes to increase resources for essential public services.
My point of order is in two parts. First, even if the question was deemed unacceptable, it should still have gone in what I think is called the shuffle or raffle. Under our Standing Orders, Madam Speaker has the power to decide that a question that is deemed inappropriate should not be put. However, it should have gone into the shuffle to be decided on subsequently.
I told the Clerks that I felt strongly about the issue. I did not accept the view that the question should be rejected because it was too open. I made it clear that I contested the argument on a point of principle.
Secondly, as an alternative to my wording of asking
what measures he proposes to increase resources for essential public services
I was offered the words:
what measures he proposes to increase resources for demand-led public services.
The difference seems minimal. If my question was too open, so was the alternative.
I am not criticising the Clerks for saying that they thought that the question was too open, but it seems to me fundamental that if a Member of Parliament feels strongly and challenges a decision on a question, it should go in the shuffle. If the question is subsequently deemed inappropriate, it can be expunged, but it is wrong for the


issue to be dealt with as it has been. I believe that my question should have gone in the shuffle and I do not accept that it is too open.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The best course of action for the hon. Gentleman is to take up any rejection of a parliamentary question with Madam Speaker privately.

Mr. Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have done that, but my central point is that there was not time. A blue card was apparently flagged up for me on the board, but it reached me after the shuffle. I told the Clerk that I challenged his view. I am not complaining about the fact that he took a different view from me, but I believe that the proper procedure is that the question should go into the shuffle. Battle can then be joined privately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is to take the matter up with Madam Speaker, as is the tradition in the House. That must be done privately, when he can go into the detail that he has gone into in his point of order.

Public Order (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—  [Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate having the opportunity to raise the operation of the public order legislation in Northern Ireland, having come up in the raffle or the shuffle. I have been seeking an opportunity for some weeks.
I recognise that Ministers were talking about unrest in the previous debate and the problems for tourist attractions. A few years ago, I had a telephone call from someone in Pittsburgh who wanted to know whether it was safe to come to Northern Ireland. I said that it was and that there were no difficulties. A short time after that, there was rioting in Detroit, so I rang and said that I was thinking of going over there that year but wondered whether it would be safe enough to go. The answer came back, "Point taken."
Those who keep emphasising the problems of Northern Ireland do not create confidence. We must bear that in mind. I am not minimising the problems, but we should not think of the jump from 1995 to 1996 as a wonderful landmark, forgetting that the world's media were coming and for months we had fact finders and trail blazers from the American President.
We were told last year that tourism had decreased dramatically around Londonderry and Belfast. I remember going to the Europa hotel in Belfast on 11 July last year to meet media people; I was speaking to Senator Mitchell's entourage there. I discovered other people who had pre-booked and were being redirected to other places because there was no room at the inn. I regret that some in the tourism industry are a little like farmers—they want each year to be better than the one before, forgetting that sometimes we have seven full years and seven lean years. We must put the issue in context.
People ask why we parade and what religious connotations there are in some parades. In the Old Testament, the people sang as they were glad when they went up to the house of the Lord. In the New Testament, there was a procession through Jerusalem when people cried, "Hosanna!" The people who did not like Jesus wanted him to ask his disciples to keep quiet. He said that, if they were to keep quiet, the stones would cry out. Walsingham is a pilgrimage site. We could go on and on naming other parades: American Independence day on 4 July, Bastille day on 14 July—they can be found everywhere.
People talk about the blocking of roads. We block main roads in Northern Ireland for longer periods for motor bike races, but there is not undue concern about that. The French dockers and others managed to block the roads around the channel ports and lost the country far more than our tragic losses of last year.
I am not minimising the issues, but I want to put them in context rather than have them over-emphasised. When Ministers talk about the amount of money lost as a result of stoppages last year—agaiin, I am not minimising the issue—it should be put in context. When Private Lee Clegg was released, some £20 million-worth of damage was done in Northern Ireland. I have heard no cries about that.
I could go on and on about that, but I do not want to do so. I merely wanted to put the background of the issue. The famous march to Bodenstown took place at the weekend, in which Martin McGuinneiss took part. The speeches at Bodenstown have traditionally outlined the policy of republicanism for the coming year. It will be interesting to examine what signals come from there.
The problems began in 1985 with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If any hon. Members want to read good contemporary fiction that is close to the bone, I recommend "Rogue Element" by Strong. The author depicts patterns of events since 1985 in a way too realistic for certain people to be able to rest content in their beds at night, knowing that the damage that they have done to the United Kingdom has been exposed.
Before the problems of recent years, marches generally passed off peacefully. They were regarded as a much cherished part of our heritage. Some people say that Roman Catholics were never involved, but I met several in demonstration fields. Some were glad to make a living there and nobody chased them away. We must face the harsh reality that the truth has been distorted.
Another factor was the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I opposed much of it in draft and thankfully some details were fine-tuned. Had it become law in its original form, we would not have been allowed the privilege or the pleasure of a traditional Salvation Army band playing on our streets and conducting open-air services. We would not have been able to give Barry McGuigan a spontaneous welcome when he came back with his world title. More significantly, trade unionists would have been unable to participate in spontaneous walk-outs.
Although we fine-tuned the legislation, it was not sufficient, and I continue to believe that it presents problems. Unlike public order legislation in England, under which more than 20 people are not allowed to assemble, in Northern Ireland the number is only six.
The Minister of State is from Scotland. I am sure that he is aware of young folk gathering on street corners intending no harm whatever. In Northern Ireland, however, if a police officer had had a row with the station sergeant and was feeling rather bilious, or if he had fallen out with his girl friend and did not like the look of six young people standing on a corner, he could tell them to move on. The young folk might well say, "Why should we move on? We are doing no harm." Under the public order order, he could then throw his weight around. I believe that the order was drawn too tightly.
More significantly, the order was absolutely unnecessary in regard to Orange parades, because the police were always notified. Most parades followed a time-honoured pattern and covered the same routes. As a lad, I remember the local constable coming to see my father, who for 21 years was marshal of the Belfast Apprentice Boys, months beforehand to verify the route so that everything could be kept in order.
Even today, many church services are included in the 3,000 so-called loyalist parades, which the media usually describe as Orange parades. They are not all Orange parades. Last week, in County Down, there was reference in the local media to an Orange parade. I heard about it

as I was travelling in the car and I said that there was no Orange parade there. When I was asked how I knew, I explained that I knew the traditions and that I suspected that it was a band parade. I was right. The following day, the media described it as a band parade. So there is some confusion and Orange parades are often used as a bogeyman.
It is absolutely unnecessary to insist on seven days' notice. Amazingly, we were told that it was at the request of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As is our tradition, we abided by the law and gave seven days' notice. That does not work as, when patterns are changed, they are often lost.
Northern Ireland is a small place. On one humorous occasion, a series of protests were organised on a particular Saturday to commemorate Ulster day. The senior police officers went to the secretary of the Belfast Orange county lodge and said, "That was a good hand. We knew that you were doing something, but we did not know that there would be three." They would have known about them all had they not required seven days' notice. We abided strictly by the law.
Having explained the background, let us consider what is now causing trouble—the growth of residents groups in Northern Ireland. There are those who say they are genuine spontaneous gatherings. It took Radio Telefis Eireann to do what the BBC failed to do time and aigain—to expose the duplicity of Sinn Fein and Adams. As a result, in The Guardian on 5 March and the Belfast Telegraph on 6 March—the Belfast Telegraph was a day behind The Guardian—it was revealed that Adams told republicans that the stand-off at Drumcree which resulted in the murder of a Catholic, the displacement of families from their homes and millions of pounds' worth of damage was the product of three years' work. That was not work by the Orange or Protestant community in Portadown; it was Sinn Fein doing what it started in 1966 through undercover operations—using perceived or real grievances and putting innocent people up front. Sinn Fein was the puppeteer pulling the strings. When Adams was confronted with that allegation, he did not deny it. His accusation against the media was that they had used underhand methods to discover what was going on as they had recorded his voice.
It was not an innocent concern that led Brendan McKenna to form the residents group in Garvaghy road and a newcomer to the Ormeau road—Gerard Rice—to form the Lower Ormeau road concerned community group; it was part of a Sinn Fein policy to cause civil unrest throughout the country.
Of course there have been reactions, and we have challenged them. I have received two letters from solicitors representing Brendan McKenna saying that he would take me to court for alleging that he had paramilitary connections. I am still awaiting that summons, just as some of my colleagues are awaiting similar summonses from Martin McGuinness. I know that some Cabinet Ministers are in the same position. They seek to use the British law to browbeat those of us who would expose their duplicity.
Why am I concerned about the working of the public order order? As one who co-operated with the police through the years and would still seek to co-operate with them and abide by the law, I believe that, when the law is not equitably and impartially administered, someone has to challenge it.
Article 7(1) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 states:
A person who for the purpose of preventing or hindering any lawful public procession or of annoying persons taking part in or endeavouring to take part in any such procession hinders, molests, obstructs or acts in a disorderly manner towards, or behaves offensively and abusively towards, those persons or any of them shall be guilty of an offence.
Article 20(1) states:
A person who by sitting, standing, kneeling, lying down or otherwise conducting himself'—
no doubt reference to "he" or "him" would also include "she" or "her"—
in a public place, wilfully obstruct or seeks to obstruct traffic or wilfully hinders or seeks to hinder any lawful activity shall be guilty of an offence.
In a written answer on 19 November 1996 to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the following figures were given: from 27 April 1987, five people were charged with obstruction under article 20(1); in 1988, 21 were charged with obstruction under article 20(1); in 1989, none was charged; in 1990, one was charged with obstruction under article 20(1); in 1991, one was charged with endeavouring to break up a lawful procession under article 7(1); in 1992, none; in 1993, none; and, in 1994, none.
The figures for the latter three years are interesting, because the Drumcree service was held as usual. The Drumcree Faith and Order group held a tea party to protest and express its viewsi—it has a right to protest peacefully, and I would be the last person to deny anyone that right—but a strange thing happened. Certain republican hoodlums attacked the factory that had been leased to the group at a peppercorn rent for youth and community activities. As a result, the tea party was not held in subsequent years and there were no problems.
In 1995, the McKenna element began its work to disrupt a lawful procession. On the Ormeau road, the residents went to law three times to ask that the parade be ruled unlawful and therefore banned. The judge was not sure why anyone would want to walk down that road, but he ruled that the assembly was lawful. However, the people on that section of road, led by Rice, cleverly manipulated the police with the threat of violence, so that the police stopped a lawful procession because they feared public disorder. No one was brought before the courts for obstructing a lawful procession. Rice was able to say to the police and others, "We never stopped you coming down. It was the police."
Then we had the famous television coverage of the No. 10 district going down the Ormeau road. Ulster Television was the only company up front enough to show the mob on the house tops aggravating the parade and waving the tricolour. By and large, the parade passed down the road in good order. One incident occurred, which was later highlighted, when a man was shown apparently giving a five-fingered salute. It was alleged by the Sinn Fein propaganda machine that the man was referring to the murder of five innocent people at Sean Graham's bookies shop. What was the story behind that? As the man was walking in the procession, two of the republican bystanders said to him, "We know where to get you." That unemployed Protestant, walking in the procession, and the two Roman Catholics—I presume—

on the footpath signed on at the same exchange. The man's response was to hold out his hand and say, "Forget about it." That was the five-fingered salute.

Mr. David Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining why the image that the media projected about those five fingers was entirely inaccurate. The presentation of that event contrasts with the media's total failure to report an incident that occurred during the funeral of the Shankill road bomber, who was responsible for the death of nine innocent civilians in Frizzell's fish shop. People in the funeral cortege passed the bottom of the Shankill road waving nine fingers in the air. One of them shouted up at the Shankill road people, "We can't kill enough of yous." That was not reported in the same way.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I confirm what my hon. Friend says, and it is one of the reasons why I prefer to do live interviews. I can be held responsible for any gaffes I make, instead of facing editorial misrepresentation that is done to distort or to get headlines.
I recognise the causes of public disturbances, but I indict successive Governments, from 1968 onwards, who have failed to grapple with the problem of organised terrorism. They have allowed it to grow and menace a whole society. It still menaces us. People talk about the peace process, but there has been no peace process. Thankfully, there has been a political process that has tried to develop democratic structures in Northern Ireland, but the so-called peace process has been a charade. From the beginning, Sinn Fein-IRA have not gone down the road of peace. I prophesy that, in six or nine weeks' time, depending how long it takes to make the decision about a ceasefire, the present Prime Minister—like the previous Prime Minister, who was put under pressure by the great and the good throughout the world—will be pressurised to accept that the ceasefire is real, without any weapons being handed over and with no evidence of sincerity.
I cannot accept the concept of chastising law-abiding people because others have broken the law. When the House, in its wisdom, passed the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, some 11 of us took a peaceful walk from city hall to the nearest police station to protest the order's denial of civil liberties. The law book was thrown at us. On another occasion, I was indicted for organising and taking part in what was called an illegal procession—I did not realise that walking down the road was necessarily illegal—but we won the case. On the occasion when we were convicted, we did our time. Admittedly, we received short sentences, but we have a criminal record because we stood by our convictions, as is only right when dealing with the liberties of our people.
Residents groups continue to plan counter-demonstrations across Northern Ireland that are contrary to the order, but few folk have been brought before the courts. Last year, we had a tragic but laughable situation when Brendan McKenna was brought before the courts in June for a breach of the law the previous July. As I understand it, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to decide whether someone has a prima facie case to answer. The DPP can get information only from the RUC—at least, I do not think that the Garda Siochana has a say. The court case was held and one of the witnesses on McKenna' s behalf was a senior RUC officer. McKenna was acquitted. How could the RUC give enough evidence to persuade the DPP to prosecute at the same time as a senior RUC officer appeared as a witness for the defence?
About a week later, in Londonderry, the drummer of one of the Portadown bands was up before the courts for provocative drumming. I have drums—one is plastic—in both ears, and I wonder how, in this age of heavy metal and other sorts of music, one should define provocative drumming. I can go no further with that case, because I am not sure whether there has been an appeal yet. I know that there was talk of one. Such judgments in the courts cause people to question whether the public order legislation is used properly and effectively. Already this year, a number of lawful parades have been re-routed.
Last year in Castlewellan, on the last Saturday in August, the local preceptory was walking through the village to join the district to go to the Comber rally of the County Down Black. One police officer was there for traffic control. The preceptory was stopped by a cousin of Gerard Rice—it is interesting how these folk turn around—a local man from Downpatrick and six others, and told, "You cannot go any further."
If the Black preceptory had wanted to, it could simply have gone further, but its members accepted the guidance of the police officer. No one has been brought before the court for obstructing a lawful parade. That is the point that I want to make.
I am told that discussions are going on, that approaches have been made and that people spend hours trying to get some understanding. It is to be hoped that that will be possible. None the less, there are several questions that I shall ask the Government.
Why are so few illegal demonstrators prosecuted, when they are clearly in contravention of public order? Why have Government not clearly recognised that parades were trouble-free before Sinn Fein-IRA-fronted groups sprang up across the country? Why have Government not pressed Sinn Fein-IRA to explain more fully Adams's Athlone comments?
Why do Government expect the loyal orders to negotiate with groups that clearly do not wish to reach accommodation, as is demonstrated by their choice of convicted terrorists as spokesmen? In 1995 the then County master of Belfast, Robert Saulters, met Gerard Rice with Quakers and police, and came to an agreement. Saulters stayed by it, but Rice could not stand by his agreement. Why continue to talk to folk who cannot be up front and deliver?
Finally, will the Government now firmly put the focus where it belongs—on those who go to parades not to celebrate their culture and heritage, but to stop others from doing so?

Mr. David Trimble: I confess that the temptation to take advantage of the extra time available for the Adjournment debate is great, but I shall not stretch it to the last possible moment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on securing the debate. It is especially timely now, and the issues are important. I hope that the Government will examine them carefully and that we shall see significant changes.
There is no doubt that the public order legislation has failed. It was introduced as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, like that agreement, it has not brought

peace, reconciliation or stability. Instead, it has added instability and set people at each other's throats. It has not produced any peace at all.
Like the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that legislation will have to be reconsidered. The Minister might find it instructive to peruse the debates in another place when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was being made. In particular, he should read the contribution of Lord Mason, who was probably the most distinguished and effective Secretary of State for Northern Ireland there has ever been.
If the Minister does that, he will see that Lord Mason accurately anticipated the problems that would flow from the Anglo-Irish Agreement in terms of interference with the traditions of Northern Ireland and with the traditional celebration of the culture and identity of its people, especially those who identify with the British tradition. It would be instructive for anyone to read that contribution and to see how prophetic Lord Mason's words were. Changes need to be made.
The problem is not new: it has arisen many times before. People who examine its history through the statute book will see that there is legislation on the subject going right back to the 19th century. At one point there was even an attempt to solve the problem by banning all parades—the party processions Acts.
Party processions legislation remained on the statute book for many decades of the 19th century. There is an interesting parallel with what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has argued, because not only was that legislation wholly ineffective; it was applied unequally. There was discrimination right at the roots of the operation of the legislation in the middle of the 19th century.
The legislation was enforced against the Orange Order but not against the nationalists. That is what one finds again and again. For many years throughout the middle of the 19th century, nationalist parades in breach of the legislation were ignored, whereas any attempt by Orangemen to parade in breach of the legislation was subject to penalties.
The same is true of the public order legislation. Illegal activity by nationalists is ignored and charges are not brought. Indeed, in a perverse way, assistance is given by the authorities to nationalists acting illegally in contravention of the Act. Conversely, the legislation is used against people who by their nature, habits and background are peaceful law-abiding citizens who are not causing trouble, people who represent the backbone of their community.
That important point should be more widely appreciated in this part of the United Kingdom. When one is dealing with the loyal orders, one is dealing not with a mere small section of society and a possible hooligan element—there are hooligan elements in society in all places, and they are present in Northern Ireland too—but when one is dealing with the parades of the loyal institutions, one is dealing not with the hooligan element but with people who are the backbone of their communities; people who uphold the traditions and values of society. It is their commitment to the values and traditions of society that, uniquely, leads them into such institutions. That point should be more widely appreciated.
Of course, I have a particular interest in such matters. Fate has it that an incident in my constituency is the focus of attention, but that is not entirely a matter of fate.


As my hon. Friend said, it results from the calculation of Sinn Fein-IRA. He described how Mr. Gerry Adams boasted last year how he and his activists had put in the work over time to create that situation.
As we watched events last year, it was interesting to see how the republican movement teed up several parades with a view to causing trouble—the Whiterock parade in Belfast, the north Belfast parade known as "the tour of the north", and a parade in Newry. For those, and a few others, Sinn Fein-IRA made preparations. They could have selected any one of them to put their effort into. It was their choice to try to cause trouble in my constituency rather than elsewhere.
We know some of the reasons Sinn Fein-IRA did that. They believed that the loyalist ceasefire was weaker in that area, and they had good reason to believe there were people in loyalist paramilitary groups there who were not committed to it. They thought that they could provoke those people into action.
We are thankful that, leaving aside one highly regrettable incident—the murder of Mr. McGoldrick—the attempt to provoke the loyalist paramilitaries into violence was not successful, but now I see that Sinn Fein-IRA are coming back with renewed efforts to try to provoke them again, with the murder of two policemen in Lurgan the other Monday. That too, no doubt, was intended to provoke paramilitary reaction.
Now I shall focus upon what has happened in my constituency in connection with the Drumcree church service. There is not enough appreciation here of the considerable efforts that the local leaders of the Orange Order have made over the past year to explain their position to as wide a range of persons as possible and to ensure that they do everything possible to defuse any confrontation and probable trouble. Their efforts include, of course, coming here to meet a wide range of hon. Members. Their efforts are not widely appreciated.
The House may be unaware that the Orange Order took the extraordinary step of writing a letter to every resident adjoining the Garvaghy road—nationalist and Unionist—to explain its position. The letter was widely praised and is fairly well known in Northern Ireland because it was reprinted in the press, but its terms may not be familiar to the House. I want to put some extracts of the letter on the record. Representatives of the County Armagh Orange Order wrote:
This is a sincere and genuine attempt to deal with the many misconceptions concerning the walk and there are a number of points we would like to make for your information:

1. The service on the first Sunday in July is partly to remember those who died at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. We pay tribute to all those of both communities who died for the cause of peace and justice.
2. The Orange Order is traditionally a parading organisation. We see our parade as an outward witness to our sincere belief in the Reformed Faith. For that reason, we see attacks on our parades as both a denial of civil liberties and an attack on our religion…
3. In the interests of harmony, mutual respect and reconciliation the Orange Order has acknowledged objections raised by the Nationalist community and has already implemented the following principles for the Drumcree Church parade:

a. The number of parades in the area has been reduced from ten to one in the past ten years.
b. Only members of Portadown District parade.
c. No bands take part which could be perceived as antagonistic to our Nationalist neighbours. Accordion bands lead the parade playing hymn music that is common to both traditions.

d. The Orangemen walk four abreast so that the walk will pass any one given point in less than five minutes.
e. The Order marshals and disciplines its own members to ensure there will be no confrontation on our part. If this was reciprocated, then there would only be a need for a minimal police presence.
f. The right to walk peacefully and in a dignified manner and the right to protest in a peaceful and dignified manner should not be denied to anyone.




It is the sincere hope of the Orange Order that the vast majority of the people of Portadown will work together in a new spirit of tolerance to defeat extremists who want confrontation this Summer.
That letter was well received by residents of the Garvaghy road, the general community in Northern Ireland and by many commentators.
Brendan McKenna, to whom reference has been made, is the spokesman for what is called the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and was largely responsible for a reply, which was publicised. It was of a very different tone and character. Instead of engaging with the conciliatory nature of the Orange Order, his letter was more querulous and demanding. In particular, it referred to the unfortunate murder of Mr. McGoldrick in 1996 and the alleged triumphalism of the Orange Order and others.
I find the reference to murder interesting, in that Mr. McKenna did not take account in his missive of the murders which have occurred closer to Garvaghy road. It is not widely appreciated that, during the troubles, there have been a number of murders in Garvaghy road of Unionists and Protestants by nationalists. The road that is now the cause of dispute originally moved through an entirely Unionist area. The population living adjacent to the road was overwhelmingly Unionist in its political persuasion.
In the early 1970s, a number of public authority housing estates, such as Churchill Park, were constructed. They originally had a mixed population but, as the troubles developed, that ceased to be the case and they are now almost overwhelmingly nationalist. One of the factors that led to the Unionist exodus from the area was the violence directed against Unionists, and the murders, for example, the murder of Mr. Paul Beattie, shot dead near his home in Churchill Park in 1972; or Mr. Roy Rutherford, killed by a booby-trap bomb at the Moy road end of Garvaghy road in May 1973; or Mr. Eddie Clayton, killed by a booby-trap bomb attached to his car on 6 March 1975; or Mr. Robert McNally, killed by a booby-trap bomb which exploded in West street after he had left his home in Woodside Green in the Garvaghy road in 1979; or Mr. John Truckle, killed by a bomb in Woodside Hill in 1983; or Mr. James Wright, killed by a booby-trap bomb in Corcrain—close to Corcrain Orange hall, which has been repeatedly vandalised and regularly burnt—in 1989.
Another part of the background is the continuing abuse and intimidation of Unionists who want to reside in the area. This was brought home vividly to me while I was canvassing in the area prior to the recent general election. I visited a street, the inhabitants of which were—only a few years ago—almost entirely Unionist voters. As a result of republican pressure, most have left. Only about 25 per cent. of the street's inhabitants are Unionists, and those residing there are not having a happy time. One of them said to me, simply, "Our lives here are hell." That hell has been created by the associates of Brendan McKenna.
That is part of the reason why there are strong feelings in the area. The brethren in Portadown perceive the attack on the parade as part of a campaign to drive all Unionists from the area to create a sectarian ghetto that will be 100 per cent. nationalist, so that the republican movement can operate at liberty within the community and use it as a base from which to attack and intimidate the rest of the town. That is a significant factor.
The letter from the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition referred also to the alleged triumphalism of the Orange Order. I will not go into the incidents which it alleged to be triumphalist, but I wish to contrast them with the behaviour of Mr. McKenna himself. He was elected as-allegedly—an Independent Nationalist councillor to Craigavon council in the local elections towards the end of May. After his election, he and his associates formed a cortege and drove down one of the main roads in the centre of Portadown with Irish tricolours flying.
The cortege drove up Garvaghy road and around local streets several times in the small hours of the morning. That involved driving through the part of Garvaghy road and Park road that is Unionist. They drove through that area with their tricolours waving and their car horns sounding at 2 o'clock in the morning. Some local residents came out to protest—vigorously, I must add—and were met with cries from the McKenna cortege of, "You will be burnt out before July." The threat was followed by attacks on subsequent nights on the homes of local people to intimidate them.
Not content with that, the cortege drove past Drumcree parish church and along the Dungannon road to the MI motorway—a distance of some five miles—through an area that is wholly Unionist. When they reached the roundabout, they contented themselves with breaking the windows of the local Methodist church. This behaviour could not of course be triumphalist and would not attract the attention of the media—nor has it.
I go into the details because it is important that people know the details of the background before they make judgments. If they feel like making judgments, let them bear in mind the conciliatory approach that the Orange Order has taken and the way in which it is trying to reach out to people to increase understanding and to ensure that no valid complaint can be made about its behaviour and to find out if we can move forward positively. There is that desire, not merely within the Orange Order but more widely throughout the Portadown community—I am sure that that includes the greater number of the people in Ballyoran and Churchill Park along the Garvaghy road. We are dealing with a small group of people who are deliberately manipulating the problems and the emotions to which those problems give rise to try to destabilise society and plunge it into disorder. It is claimed that those people are not, as alleged, Sinn Fein. We say that there is Sinn Fein orchestration behind the operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South referred to some of the personalities concerned. There are three principal, so-called residents groups—one for the Lower Ormeau road in Belfast, one for the Bogside in Londonderry and one for the Garvaghy road in Portadown. The people who front those organisations have clear associations. Mr. Gerard Rice, who is the spokesman for the Lower Ormeau residents group, served

a four-year prison term for IRA membership and possession of weapons, which clearly demonstrates his background and allegiance. The spokesman for the Bogside residents group, Mr. Donncha MacNeilis, has been convicted of IRA membership and arms possession and is the son of a Sinn Fein councillor on Derry city council. As for Mr. McKenna himself, he was gaoled for six years in 1982 for his part in a bombing in Portadown and received sentences for firearms offences, false imprisonment and hijacking, being one of two masked terrorists who held a Churchill Park family hostage for three hours while their car was stolen and used in a bombing—the bombing of the Royal British Legion hall in Portadown. It was clearly an attack on the British identity, but it is interesting to note his selection as spokesman for the Garvaghy road coalition. I am sure that when that selection was made it was thought that his record in bombing the Royal British Legion was appropriate because, by tradition, the Portadown Orange district processions are always led by the ex-service men's lodge. It was felt appropriate, no doubt, to have someone whose record was bombing a Royal British Legion hall to cause the maximum offence to an organisation that gives former service men pride of place in its activities.
I hope that problems of that nature will be resolved. I hope that the desire for peace of the greater number of people in Northern Ireland will be respected. I hope that we will see better quality decision making from the police and others on this problem.
Over and above all of that, we also need changes in the legislation. We put those points firmly to the North committee. Unfortunately, its report did not reflect the points that we made. The structure of the public order legislation exacerbates the situation. By appearing to cast on the police an obligation to stop a parade if violence is threatened if it should go ahead, the legislation ensures that any group that threatens to block a parade—using violence to do so—has its desire carried into effect. The structure of the legislation assists groups that want to destabilise the situation by attacking traditional parades. That aspect must be studied. We must move away from these competitions—as it were—to see who can muster the larger crowd to determine the police decision. In some cases, it appears that the decision depends on which group has the larger number of protesters assembled. That is not a satisfactory way to deal with the matter.
The right to assemble and to freedom of movement ought to be respected, particularly in regard to traditional activities of a largely religious and cultural nature. Distinctions could be drawn between religious and cultural activities on the one hand and party political activities on the other. They could also be drawn between what is part of the accepted custom and practice of the community and what is introduced as a new event to provoke trouble or to depart from that established custom and practice. Those are the factors that ought to be embodied in the legislation.
Of course we hope that there will be consensus in the community on the issue, which would help to support such legislation and make it effective. The Government have to do something more, however, than simply sit back and say, "It's up to local people to solve the problem." The Government have a responsibility and I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is doing what she can in that respect, but she is not tackling the root of the problem. Simply going to each trouble spot and hoping


that one can patch the problem up there will not solve it. The armed conspiracy that lies behind it can move to and create other situations. We shall solve this not by chasing to one hot spot after another, but by realising that we are dealing with an armed conspiracy that is manipulating the situation and by ensuring that our legislation and practices do not assist such a conspiracy and give it more tools with which to destabilise society.

Mr. William Thompson: I welcome this opportunity to debate parades in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for belonging—like many others in my constituency—to the Orange Institution. Furthermore, I believe that some of the best people in Northern Ireland—some of the most honest and most respectable citizens—belong to that institution. We do not have to apologise for being members. Republican propaganda would taint us as bigots, but we certainly are not.
Many of the Orange Institution's members have given noble service in the part-time security forces protecting the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, history shows that many members of the Orange Institution played a noble part in the two world wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45.
The object of the Orange Institution is to show loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. Of course, IRA-Sinn Fein want to paint the Orange Institution black with their propaganda campaign. I want to remove some of the mists from the organisation. The Orange Institution does not march through Roman Catholic estates. Of necessity, when walking a public highway, it has to march past Roman Catholic estates, but it is not the practice of the institution to march through the estates and give offence.
Over the years, because of changing populations, changes have taken place in the Orange Institution's parades. There used to be a parade up Castle street in Omagh, but it does not now take place. There used to be an Orange parade through that most republican village, Carrickmore, but it does not now take place. Due to reasonableness and understanding and the changes in population, many changes have taken place by normal agreement.
There is now a deliberate attack on the marches of the Orange Institution; that is a direct attack on our Protestant ethos and culture. I have personal experience of the situation in my constituency, because each year two Orange lodges get together and march through the village of Mountfield to the local church, where they have a religious service, and then walk back again. They walk respectably, in order and peaceably, and over the years there has been no trouble in the village.
This year, because of events elsewhere in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein and the IRA have discovered that if they gather a crowd and threaten to sit down in the road, the police, rather than allowing the parade to go ahead, will stop it and do nothing about the Sinn Fein-IRA sympathisers. Last Sunday, the IRA-Sinn Fein trick meant that the Orange parade never got to the church; it was stopped.
The police interpretation of paragraph 4 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in such a situation can only be perverse. Surely the order is intended to operate only if the parade is the cause of serious violence. Surely the police should reroute the parade only if the behaviour of those on the parade necessitates it. It is

perverse to argue that if a third party blocks the parade, it is the parade that should be stopped. People's legitimate rights are done away with, as on Sunday, when the Orangemen did not get to their church.
The police of course say that they have stopped the parade to prevent a breach of the peace, but surely anyone blocking the road to stop a parade is committing a breach of the peace. Surely the police are duty bound in that situation to prevent that, and to clear the roadway, so that those who are legitimately, lawfully and peacefully marching can go about their business. The Minister should consider the order again, and if the interpretation is not clear it should be altered to ensure that people have the right to march peaceably along the Queen's highway.
What is the point of 21 days' notice in relation to Orange parades? In the English legislation, there is no need to give notice for parades that are traditional, regular and yearly. If the police are doing their job and know anything about the community in which they operate, they will know about the Orange parades that take place annually.
The chief of police says that he welcomes the Parades Commission, and that decisions about parades should be taken out of his hands and given to a third party. Surely the fact remains that ultimately the police are responsible for law and order. To try to give the responsibility for public order to a third party is ridiculous, because the commission knows little about the various areas of Northern Ireland.
The commission will take advice from many different people, and we can rest assured that on some occasions its decision will be ridiculous. Only the local police know the exact circumstances, and it is up to them to take the decision. The commission will say that a parade is to be stopped, and the police may find that they cannot stop it; or the commission will say that a parade is to go ahead, and Sinn Fein-IRA will try to stop it, so the police will have to enforce a decision that they did not make and might not agree with. They will have to police the situation, and if they do not do what the commission says, they will be called the worst thing in the world.
Furthermore, many decisions in Northern Ireland go up the line to the Chief Constable. Often, the recommendation of the local police is not accepted, and what the local police commander who is active on the ground would like to do and considers reasonable is countermanded by his chief, away up at headquarters. That is intolerable because, as I understand the law, the commander on the ground at the time has to make the decisions and is responsible for them.
There is no doubt that the iniquitous Anglo-Irish Agreement has had a detrimental effect on decisions on Orange Order parades and that the Irish Government have put pressure on the British Government and the Northern Ireland Office to ban certain parades. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Chief Constable is open to such political interference. The Chief Constable is ultimately responsible for security and for taking the decisions; he should not be moved by political interference.
The Secretary of State seems to be travelling around and talking to this person and that, to one side and the other. Surely that is a very foolish exercise for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Whatever decision she makes, or the police make, she will be accused of being on the wrong side.
Surely the Secretary of State's responsibility should come into operation only when she is asked by the Chief Constable to ban a parade. Surely going around in such negotiations prejudices her role. She has the obligation before making such a decision to consult the police authority; can we take it that she will do that?
The parades issue in Northern Ireland is very emotive and serious. The activities of the police mean that they are beginning to lose the support of the Protestant and loyalist population of Northern Ireland. When lawbreakers come out to stop a parade, it is unacceptable that the police, instead of directing their Land Rovers at those who are breaking the law, aim and face their Land Rovers against the lawkeepers. That causes great anger in the Protestant, Unionist, loyalist population. As this year's season continues, I hope that things will go peacefully. I hope that if the law is properly enforced, we can find peace in these difficult times.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): It has been a long debate—longer than many of us expected.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister has two hours.

Mr. Ingram: I might just take that long if I thought that the hon. Gentleman would miss his flight.

Mr. Trimble: I have missed it already.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has missed it already.
I join the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in congratulating the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on obtaining this debate, which has been helpful. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made his maiden speech earlier, and has now made another. If he makes a habit of that, we will never get home.
As Minister responsible for security matters and economic development, I should perhaps take issue with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. It is not the purpose of this debate to deal with the economic consequences of public disorder, but I take issue with some of his conclusions about the impact on the tourist sector in Northern Ireland.
There is clear evidence that, while there was a very positive upsurge during the ceasefire, it has gone into serious decline. That causes unemployment and major problems in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. We should all take stock of that. It is difficult to achieve significant job investment in Northern Ireland while there are problems of serious disorder. The figures point to that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with the Minister, but, as I said to Secretary Ron Brown, when he came with President Clinton, some American and other companies invested in Northern Ireland in the worst possible times. Companies could learn to invest in the best possible times. We should not give credibility to those who are trying to

destroy the economy by highlighting the problems to our American and other friends who came in when things were much worse.

Mr. Ingram: This debate is not about the economic impact of public disorder, which we shall have other opportunities to debate. I know that hon. Members want as many jobs as possible brought to Northern Ireland, not only to their constituencies but to all parts of Northern Ireland. That is the task with which I have been charged, and I hope to work with them in future. I share the sentiment that we should not talk up the worst scenario, but should remember that bad scenarios affect those who make investment decisions. Sometimes we know only what we win, and not what we have lost as a result of past activities.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South is clearly important because of the many worries that exist in Northern Ireland. I am genuinely grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out in detail the nature and extent of public order legislation as it applies to Northern Ireland. I would also like to deal with the actions being taken by the Government, and particularly by the Secretary of State, since she was mentioned in the debate, in seeking an accommodation and a resolution of the extremely difficult problems and differences between certain sections of what many rightly consider to be the deeply divided community of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised specific matters relating to the application of the law as it stands in articles 7 and 20 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. He mentioned two specific cases with which I shall deal later. Let me set his remarks in context with specific reference to the legal framework within which the forces of law and order operate in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, South agrees that, in any democracy, it is a fundamental right for people to be able to express their views publicly. That right, however, is conditioned by the need to behave responsibly and to be conscious of the rights of others likely to be affected by the public expression of the views in question. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the legal framework within which those rights are mutually protected is set out in the public order legislation determined by this Parliament.
That legislation provides that, so long as serious public disorder is not expected to cause serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of community, or intimidation of others, public demonstrations, parades or marches are lawful. In essence, the law allows people a right to peaceful protest or demonstration of views, but each side must behave responsibly and consider the other.
Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland there are people intent on violence, confrontation and disorder. There can be no question but that many of the scenes witnessed last year, particularly around the time of the parade in Drumcree in July, were the deliberate work of people wishing to cause disruption.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister confirm that the law breaking and intimidation must result from the parade itself before it can be re-routed or banned by the police?

Mr. Ingram: Of course, there are many aspects of the legislation that are brought into play in making a


determination. The hon. Gentleman commented on the role, function and powers of the Chief Constable. He makes his judgments, based on the law that he has to operate. That is the basis on which decisions are taken, and taken often with the co-operation and accommodation of those seeking to march and parade.
My point was that the scenes we witnessed last year, particularly around the Drumcree events in July, were the deliberate work of people wishing to cause disruption. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that there can be no excuse for such violent behaviour, then or at any time, no matter from which source it comes. The sad fact is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is all too often caught in the middle. All of us, whether Members of Parliament or people who participate in community life in Northern Ireland, must do all we can to support the RUC and others who act in support of it.
Hon. Members know that public order legislation in Northern Ireland provides for a number of offences for those involved in confrontations such as those we witnessed last year. They include specific offences of, for example, provocative conduct and obstructing a lawful parade, as well as the offence of disorderly conduct. It is, of course, a matter for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to come to decisions on prosecutions.
I hope that the hon. Members for Belfast, South, for Upper Bann, and for West Tyrone accept the Government's assurances that the police are determined to keep the peace and see the rule of law prevail. Those engaged in violent protest should expect to face the full rigour of the law. That is the overriding objective of the Government.
Under existing legislation, the RUC is not empowered to make decisions on whether to allow parades to take place. However, legislation does allow the RUC to place conditions on a parade and to order its re-routing if, on grounds of public order implications, it is considered necessary. Experience has shown that the RUC makes every effort to exercise its best judgment in dealing with contentious parades. Every year, there are many hundreds of parades of all types, the vast majority of which pass off peacefully.
In the short time that I have had ministerial responsibility for this matter, I have been encouraged to note that, of almost 900 parades this year, only one has been classified by the RUC as disorderly. The Government welcome the co-operation given by parade organisers to the RUC when some parades have had to be re-routed. Such co-operation can be seen only as a positive sign for the future.
The ultimate sanction of banning a parade rests with the Secretary of State, and that would be exercised only when all attempts at accommodation and resolution have failed. That said, the serious disturbances surrounding contentious parades in Northern Ireland over the past two years led the last Government to appoint an independent review team, headed by Dr. Peter North, to examine the whole question of parades and associated public order issues.
The North report brought a welcome degree of fresh thinking to this contentious area. It recognised that a more structured and broadly based system was needed to encourage the local accommodation of difficulties on parades. It clearly acknowledged that the right of free association is fundamental in a free society, but it recognised also that that right is not absolute.
The report suggested that an approach based on compromise, mutual respect and recognition of the rights, viewpoints and sensitivities of others offers the best way forward where disputes occur. The review team consulted widely, taking careful account of the rights of both sides, and maintaining as a central consideration the need to avoid providing any incentive for those involved to provoke or threaten disorder.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the current public order legislation provides an incentive to disorder. The North report recognised that danger. Its recommendations seek to tackle it, giving the Parades Commission the power to take account not only of the wider impact of a parade on relationships within the community but of the past behaviour of both sides—marchers and protesters—in reaching its final decision. The aim is that those who seek to use force to get their way will be penalised, not rewarded, for their actions.
Several of the report's recommendations have already been put in place. The Parades Commission was established in March under the chairmanship of Mr. Alistair Graham, and is pursuing vigorously its current remit of mediation, conciliation and education. In addition, the passage of the Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order has extended the required notification period for a parade to 21 days and imposed new controls on the consumption of alcohol by those associated with such parades.
The Government are committed to implementing the remaining recommendations of the North report as soon as possible. Hon. Members will be aware that it was announced in the Queen's Speech that the Government will introduce a Bill in the autumn to do this. The Government intend to have the legislation, and the systems and structures that flow from it, in place in good time for next year's marching season.
That will place the Parades Commission on a statutory footing and give it a range of specific functions. Among those will be a duty to promote greater understanding by the general public of issues concerning public processions, and to promote and facilitate mediation as a means of resolving disputes.
Where mediation has not led to a local accommodation, the Parades Commission will be able to make determinations on particular parades, having taken into account all the relevant factors. As recommended by the North report, the Secretary of State will be able, if asked to do so by the Chief Constable, to review any determination by the commission. Moreover—this goes to the heart of some of the points raised by hon. Members—on the day, the police will retain their common law powers to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent public disorder.
The Government are keenly aware of the fears and sensitivities that those issues arouse on all sides. We are therefore determined, in taking forward legislation to provide new powers for the Parades Commission and the new framework for handling parades, to recognise some of the concerns that have been expressed this evening.
That is why we are proceeding by way of primary legislation, rather than by Order in Council. In the previous debate, concern was expressed about how some legislation has been dealt with through Order in Council.


That will not apply to this legislation. That will enable our proposals to be subject to the fullest possible scrutiny by Parliament.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister said that the police would retain their "common law powers". Will they also retain their statutory powers?

Mr. Ingram: I was very specific in what I said. We shall have a full debate when the legislation goes through the procedures of the House. Now that the hon. Gentleman has found his voice and his capacity to intervene in Ministers' contributions to debates, I am sure that he will intervene regularly in my contributions on that subject. I look forward to dealing with him on the detail of that legislation.
In addition to the points that I was making, when the legislation is introduced later this year, it will take full account of the experience of this year's marching season. Importantly, the views of all those involved will be listened to in order to achieve any possible enhancements to the measures that we propose. The Government will be genuinely open to serious proposals on the structure of the legislation, such as to enhance the chances of local accommodation and the workability of the new arrangements. I am sure that hon. Members will make their views known at the appropriate time, when the matter is considered by the House.
The Government recognise that no commission can, of itself, resolve this contentious issue. What is required is a willingness on each side to appreciate where the other side is coming from. All of us in government—indeed, throughout the wider community—must work hard to encourage and facilitate a greater dialogue between both sides of the argument over a parade or demonstration. It is only by sitting down and talking to one another, through intermediaries if necessary, that each side will be able to understand the fears and sensitivities of the other. What is required is understanding and accommodation.
Hon. Members mentioned Gerry Adams's comments about Sinn Fein's objective of stirring up trouble on parades. Clearly, I am aware of those media reports of his alleged comments, and I deplore all such sentiments. The Government's objective is to encourage local accommodation. Such comments undermine that very objective.
Nobody is being asked to set aside their deeply held principles or to deny their culture and traditions, but there is a need to appreciate the other person's ethos and traditions and the importance attached to them. In a free society, we have the right to be different and to celebrate our culture and traditions, provided that we do so within the law, and having regard to the need to avoid giving offence to others.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the points that the Minister has been making, and we look forward to a general debate later. Will he bear in mind, however, the fact that, with a bipartisan approach, people may not pay enough attention to the lone voices from Northern Ireland?
The Minister speaks of cherished traditions. Is he aware that the North report, which was given a specific remit concerning parades, criticised the qualifications of an

Orangeman and made no reference to the qualifications or doctrinal standards of any other body? Such one-sidedness causes problems. Will the Government guarantee that those who deliberately set out to destroy a particular culture in Northern Ireland—our British culture—will not be allowed, by force of weapons or disruption, to have their way?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask the latter part of that question. He knows the determination of this Government and previous Governments to resist the men of violence, from whichever side of the community they come.
With reference to the North report and its comments on traditions and culture, that is an analysis, as opposed to the conclusions on which the legislation will be built. We must deal with the purpose and possible impact of the legislation. The Government believe that the legislation will improve the situation, taking account of all factors.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which will no doubt be raised during the debate. Let us deal with the substance and purpose of the legislation, and what we are seeking to achieve.
It was mentioned during the debate that the issue of parades in Northern Ireland has considerable potential to polarise opinion and raise community tensions. Of that there is no doubt. There are deeply help convictions on both sides, but we believe that the best way to reduce the tensions and difficulties surrounding parades is through dialogue and negotiation, leading to accommodation at local level.
That is not a question of denying anyone his right. Instead, it is about reaching an acceptable balance. All those with influence—I include the hon. Members—should seek reconciliation, not confrontation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others working on her behalf have been tireless in their efforts to achieve such an objective. Instead of the criticisms that have been made tonight, we should all pay tribute to her and the officials who have been meeting all sides to avoid a rerun of last year's disgraceful scenes.
The House will be aware that the Secretary of State has invited both sides involved at Drumcree, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, to join her for intensive discussions at Hillsborough castle, in a continued attempt to achieve the local accommodation that all reasonable people in Northern Ireland want.
It is not yet possible to say whether those efforts will have a successful outcome, but I can assure the House that the Government will continue to do all that they can to avoid a repetition of last year's appalling events. I hope that I take with me on that journey the hon. Members—I am sure that I do, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to call on them to use their good offices, when necessary.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I assure the Minister that that would be the desire of each of us. The criticisms levelled at my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) because he used his influence to divert problems last year—to curb extremists—have been perverted by the media to suggest that he was leading them against the RUC. Does the Minister accept that that was not a helpful


representation? If my hon. Friend had not been there, using his energies to do what the Minister has asked us to do, the situation would have been entirely different.

Mr. Ingram: I have made no such criticism. I listened carefully to what was said. The media have a capacity always to play to their own agenda. As we are talking about the impact of the past, I emphasise that we must learn the lessons of the past, but I hope that that can be the forgotten country. Let us look at the point we have reached, and the point that we want to reach in future.
I was setting out the aims that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been trying to achieve by seeking through mediation an accommodation from both sides. It is important to make it clear that the variety of powers available to the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order will be exercised in full, if need be. That situation has not yet been reached. I ask all hon. Members who have any influence to bring to bear on the matter that they do so in a constructive, not a destructive, way.
The recent exchange of letters between the Orange Order and the residents of the Garvaghy road should be seen as a significant step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the letter from the Orange Order. Clearly that was a major step forward. I do not want to go into detail, but I would take issue with its total conclusion with regard to the residents' letter, as there were glimmers of hope in that as well. We must always look for ways forward. Clearly, all of us welcome the efforts of the newsletter and the Irish News in encouraging people to seek common ground. That was another helpful step forward.
I referred earlier to the fact that the RUC is all too often caught in the middle of public disorder situations, and the need to give the RUC our full support. Unfortunately, we have seen all too clearly the tragic results of the police being demonised by those who cannot accept decisions lawfully taken to prevent public disorder.
The appalling murder of Constable Greg Taylor in Ballymoney was a powerful reminder of what can happen when hatred and violence overpower the normal rules of civilised behaviour. Outright condemnation of such atrocities is required—condemnation without equivocation or rationalisation of the events. I cannot accept that such attacks on police officers or their families are in some way understandable. Such grotesque acts are no more understandable than attacks on the security forces or members of the public by the IRA or any other paramilitary group.
The police are there to serve the entire community. In doing so, they have difficult decisions to make. Although some may not agree with particular decisions, the blunt fact is that, if we truly believe in the rule of law, our reaction to such decisions should be to respect the role and functions of the RUC, as it is acting in a way consistent with the powers given to it by Parliament.
I shall deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South when he opened the debate. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases that are currently subject to legal process. At an appropriate time, when the legal process has been duly exhausted, I will write to him and to other hon. Members on points raised in relation to specific cases.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South for making some of his concerns known in advance. Accordingly, I have been able to investigate the points that he made. He suggested that Mr. McKenna of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition was prosecuted but acquitted when the police gave evidence on his behalf, or failed fully to carry out their duty.
Mr. McKenna was indeed prosecuted for obstructive sitting, under article 20 of the order in connection with an incident on 9 July 1995. The case was heard at Craigavon magistrates court on 25 June 1996. The police in fact gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution. A magistrate dismissed the case.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there is an imbalance in the rigour with which the law is enforced, citing the case of a loyalist bandsman convicted of provocative drumming.

Mr. Trimble: rose—

Mr. Ingram: I taken several interventions, and now I must get on.
I would strongly contest—

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the Minister is reading from a brief, and I sympathise with him, but someone may be helping him to give wrong information, if not to mislead the House. We must be careful about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Minister must respond in the way that he thinks best. The Chair is not responsible.

Mr. Ingram: Of course I am reading from a brief. The hon. Member for Belfast, South informed me that he would raise specific points, so we have investigated. I am replying according to the advice that I have received. I do not want to go into detail. We are not dealing with a specific case. If hon. Members disagree with the view that I am expressing, let us deal with that by way of correspondence. I am quite prepared to be open about the matter. I do not believe that that was a point of order—it was a specious attempt to intervene.
I return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South in relation to provocative drumming. If I understood him correctly, he said that there was bias in the way in which the police handled the case. If that was the implication, I entirely contradict it. I would argue that the individual in question received a fair trial and was convicted of a serious offence—that is the reality in law.
I turn now to matters relating to articles 7 and 20, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South referred. In cases where persons were allegedly involved in attempting to prevent a lawful parade, the police may have considered it more appropriate to proceed under article 18, which makes it an offence for persons in any public place to use riotous or disorderly behaviour, or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the number of convictions under articles 7 and 20. I have consulted the answer to the parliamentary question put down by the


hon. Member for Upper Bann, and I accept that the number is not high. However, we must recognise that the number of prosecutions for disorderly behaviour is much higher: 1,612 in 1996, and a total of 19,165 prosecutions since the order came into force. That picture is entirely different from the one painted by the hon. Member for Belfast, South.
Hon. Members said that tensions are high in Northern Ireland at present. We all want to see an end to that state of affairs, and we must seek a solution. I have tried to deal with the main issues raised and with two specific issues—we should resolve any disputes that arise

elsewhere if need be—and I have set out the context within which the forces of law and order are obliged to operate as they face the current round of marches and parades.
I repeat that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister urge that common sense should prevail, and that accommodation between the divided communities should take precedence over confrontation. I do not believe that any hon. Member would disagree with that objective. It is what the vast majority of decent people in Northern Ireland want, and nothing less will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Nine o'clock.